ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Samarendra Pratap Singh for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the sale notice (Annixure-12) published by respondent no. 2, inter alia, in terms of section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, whereby the petitioner Company (apart from others not relevant in the present context) has been advertised for sale on account of non-payment of the loan amount. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner company had applied for financial accommodation with the respondent Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as BISCICO). A sum of As. 90 lacs was sanctioned against which a sum of As. 89.24 lacs was disbursed between 13.7.1989 to 26.3.1997. The petitioner fell in arrears and, therefore. BISCICO served its letter No.1377, dated 14.1.2002 (Annexure-9), informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs.344.61 lacs as on 30.9.2001 is overdue against the petitioner company and was requested to liquidate the dues to avoid penal action. This was followed by letter No.1759, dated 25.12002 (Annexure-10) and the letter dated 31.1.2002 (Annexure-11), informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs.344.61 lacs was due on 30.9.2001 and steps should be taken to pay the entire loan amount within seven days from the issue of the latter failing which action in accordance with law will be taken. The petitioner did not pay at all which has led to the impugned sale notice (Annexure-12), inter alia, under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, whereby the petitioner company (apart from others not relevant in the present context) has been advertised for sale. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BISCICO failed in its obligation to disburse the loan amount promptly. It is submitted that as would appear form the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the loan amount of Rs.89.24 lacs had been disbursed from 13.7.89 to 26.3.97 which caused obstruction in the business activities of the petitioner. He next submits that a sum of Rs.7 lacs of the loan amount was arrogated towards adjustment of the loan amount which is to the prejudice of the petitioner. He next submits that a sum of Rs.7 lacs of the loan amount was arrogated towards adjustment of the loan amount which is to the prejudice of the petitioner. He further submits that on account of the aforesaid mistakes on the part of BISCICO, the petitioner company has become sick and its rehabiliation proposal as per Annexure 3 is pending with the State Government. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1993 (1) PLJR (SC) 90 (Mahesh Chandrs Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation). 4. Learned counsel for BISCICO submits in his elaborate submissions that the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case for interference even on its own showing. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents is right in his submission that it is manifest from the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that a sum of about Rs.85 lacs was disbursed between the period 13.7.1979 to 8.11.1991 and comparatively small amount of Rs.4,45,815/ - was disbursed on 26.3.1997. Release of the loan amount depends on the progress registered by the entrepreneur. It further appears that the petitioner's track record of repayment of loan is very poor. The petitioner itself has so far paid a sum of Rs.5,06,014/-. The State Government has granted Rs.25,88,683/- (approx.) by way of industrial subsidy to the petitioner which, as per the usual practice was paid directly to the lending institution and has been adjusted against the loan amount. On account of the over-delay in repayment of the loan amount, the Corporation released a sum of Rs.7 lacs of the loan amount in favour of the petitioner and through reverse route a adjusted it a against the loan amount. Therefore, a sum of Rs.37,94,697/- (approx.) has been credited to the petitioner's account towards repayment of the loan. This is undoubtedly a very poor track record against the outstanding sum of Rs.3,44,67,000/- as on 30.9.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore, right in his submission that the petitioner has not been able to make out a frima facie case for interference with the impugned action. 6. This is undoubtedly a very poor track record against the outstanding sum of Rs.3,44,67,000/- as on 30.9.2001. Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore, right in his submission that the petitioner has not been able to make out a frima facie case for interference with the impugned action. 6. I must deal with the last contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, namely, the petitioner's rehabilitation proposal is pending with the Bihar Government vide the petitioner's letter dated 19.8.1999 (Annexure-3), addressed to the Director of Industries-cum-Chairman, Apex Body, Department of Industries, Govt. of Bihar. I am of the view that this proposal does not involve BISCICO and has no bearing on the question of realisation of its dues. That is a matter entirety between the petitioner and the State of Bihar. The petitioner has placed reliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra (supra). The same has been over-ruled by the Supreme Curt In its judgment reported in 2002 (1) Supreme 404 : 2002 (3) PLJR (SC) 13 (Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills), paragraphs 17 and 18 of the latter judgment are relevant in the present context and are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "17. The aforesaid guidelines issued in Mahesh Chandra's case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of power by the Financial Corporation contained in Section 29 of the Act by requiring the defaulting unit holder to be associated or consulted at every stage in the sake of the property. A person who has defaulted is hardly ever likely to cooperate in the sale of his assets. The procedure indicated in Mahesh Chandra's case will only lead to further delay in realization of the dues by the Corporation by sale of assets. It is always expected that the Corporation will try and realize the maximum sale price by selling the assets by following a procedure which is transparent and acceptable, after due publicity, wherever possible. "18. The subsequent decisions of this Court in Gem Cap's (supra) Naini oxygen (supra) and Micro Cast Rubber (supra) run counter to the view expressed in Mahesh Chandra's case. In our opinion, the issuance of the said guidelines in Mahesh Chandra's case are contrary to the letter and the intent of section 29. "18. The subsequent decisions of this Court in Gem Cap's (supra) Naini oxygen (supra) and Micro Cast Rubber (supra) run counter to the view expressed in Mahesh Chandra's case. In our opinion, the issuance of the said guidelines in Mahesh Chandra's case are contrary to the letter and the intent of section 29. In our view, the said observation in Mahesh Chandra's case do not lay down the correct law and the said decision is overruled." Learned counsel for the petitioner should have taken care not to cite an overruled judgment. 7. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.