Judgment ( 1. ) BY filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has claimed following reliefs against the respondents : "7 (i) to issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order as deemed fit directing the respondent for granting time to the petitioner for disposing of the hotel (Sukhsagar) situated at Rau Pithampur Road on depositing Rs. 50,000/- a month on account, (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any such other writ, direction or order directing the respondent not to sell off the property of the petitioner in haste and to allow the petitioner to fetch the best available price for its property and also to permit the petitioner to upkeep and maintain the hotel in a running condition under supervision of the Corporation. ( 2. ) PETITIONER had taken loan from the respondent M. P. F. C. for setting up a Hotel. It is the case of petitioner that he was unable to repay the loan amount and thus, became a defaulter. The respondent then went on reminding the petitioner to liquidate the outstanding dues by sending legal notices and eventually Finding that petitioner has not acceded to the request made, resorted to powers conferred on them under Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act and after serving notice dated 2. 6. 2001 (Annexure. P-10) took possession of the Hotel. As on that date i. e. the date on which possession was taken, the petitioner was shown to be indebted to the tune of Rs. 41. 05 lacs to the respondent. ( 3. ) IN fact, despite the Hotel (Unit) having been taken over by the respondent under Section 29 ibid, the petitioner has made no attempt to challenge the take over as such. Even in this petition, filed the petitioner has confined his relief to aforementioned two reliefs. In fact, the relief that the petitioner has prayed is that he may be afforded some time to repay the loan in instalment of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The other relief claimed by the petition is that respondent should not sell the property (Hotel) in post haste unless it fetches best price. ( 4. In fact, the relief that the petitioner has prayed is that he may be afforded some time to repay the loan in instalment of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The other relief claimed by the petition is that respondent should not sell the property (Hotel) in post haste unless it fetches best price. ( 4. ) IT is at the time of argument stage, the petitioner came out with amendment application and sought to raise a plea challenging the action of the respondent in taking over the Unit under Section 29 ibid. In the interest of justice, this Court has permitted the petitioner to raise the plea. At the close of argument, the petitioner filed one affidavit on 19. 11. 2001 offering to pay amount of Rs. one lac for reschedulement of the loan account. ( 5. ) THE respondent M. P. F. C. has by filing return defended the impugned action on facts as also on law. It is inter alia stated that admittedly the petitioner is a defaulter and hence, action taken to sell the Unit for recovery of huge amount of Rs. 41 lacs is just and proper. ( 6. ) HEARD Mr. S. C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. D. Chhabra, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mrs. Ritu Bhargava, learned Counsel for respondent. ( 7. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find absolutely no merit in the writ worth even taking note of. It is indeed misconceived having no cause of action to sustain. ( 8. ) EVEN according to petitioner, he is defaulter to the tune of Rs. 41 lacs. He has been himself offering to repay either by one mode or other but all has gone in vain. Paying some money towards large outstanding does not give any right to avoid the action under Section 29 of the Act by the respondent. In these circumstances, if the respondent has resorted to taking over of the Unit by taking aid of Section 29 ibid then, there is absolutely nothing wrong in their action. It is neither illegal, nor arbitrary. In no case, it can be struck down. In order to safeguard the interest of Corporation, the timely action to obtain the possession of Unit for being sold to realize the outstanding to the tune of Rs. It is neither illegal, nor arbitrary. In no case, it can be struck down. In order to safeguard the interest of Corporation, the timely action to obtain the possession of Unit for being sold to realize the outstanding to the tune of Rs. 41 lacs can never be regarded as an action done in post haste. It was in fact done as a last resort when it was found that despite repeated reminders and legal notices, the petitioner was not making any efforts to clear the outstanding. The belated challenge made by the petitioner to an action under Section 29 ibid is totally misconceived and is obviously made for the sake of challenge. It has no basis both on facts and in law. It is accordingly repelled. Thus, necessarily results in rejection of any offer made by petitioner to liquidate the dues. ( 9. ) ONCE the action under Section 29 ibid is upheld then, the only direction that has to follow or can be given to respondent is to sell the Unit by inviting tenders from public at large and then finalize the best offer so received. It is at that stage the petitioner has to be given yet one more opportunity as directed by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the leading case of Mahesh Chandra, to purchase the Hotel (Unit in question) at the same price or to bring better offer of any other person. ( 10. ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the petition fails and is dismissed. As observed supra, the respondent while selling the Unit in question shall observe the guidelines contained in Mahesh Chandras case and what is observed supra, to safeguard the interest of petitioner. The interim stay granted stands vacated. C. C. within three days.