JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Assam Vegetable & Oil Products Ltd. (herein after referred to as the petitioner) challenging the decision of the respondent, Assam Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'AIDC') in taking over the Vegetable Oil refining unit of the petitioner at Chandrapur and disposing of the same to the Respondent No. 6. 2. The facts in brief is that the Vegetable Oil refining unit situated at Chandmari originally belonging to M/s Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. was purchased by the petitioner from AIDC in the year 1992 at a price of Rs. 61 lakhs out of which the petitioner partly paid a sum of Rs. 15.25 lakhs and got possession of the unit. In the year 1999 AIDC issued notice for taking action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for alleged arrears and thereafter, the unit was taken over by the AIDC on 21.9.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, approached this Court in WP (C) 1507/2000. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.8.2000 directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs within 10 days and also directing the Corporation to sort out the matter within a period of 2 months. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 was deposited and a negotiation was held in between the petitioner and AIDC. But, ultimately the negotiation failed. The petitioner again approached this Court in WP(C) No. 345/01 and the petition was disposed of on 30.2.2001 with a direction to the AIDC to consider the matter sympathetically. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, AIDC asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 19.80 lakhs in one instalment to set out the dues. However, no such payment was made and thereafter the AIDC accepted the offer of the private respondent Gupta Mineral (I) Pvt. Ltd. to sell the unit at Rs. 34 lakhs. 3. The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned letter dated 2.4.2002 and restraining the respondent No. 6 from using the raw materials etc. lying at the factory premises. 4. The respondent AIDC filed affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that against the sale price of Rs. 61 lakhs, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 39.80 lakhs leaving a balance of Rs. 21.20 lacs towards principal amount. lying at the factory premises. 4. The respondent AIDC filed affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that against the sale price of Rs. 61 lakhs, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 39.80 lakhs leaving a balance of Rs. 21.20 lacs towards principal amount. The petitioner is also liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 36.47 lakhs towards interest and penal charges. It is submitted that AIDC had offered petitioner-company a full waiver of penal charges and commission of 50% of outstanding interest for one time settlement. But the petitioner did not accept the same and delayed the matter on this or that count. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the AIDC considered the matter sympathetically and made offer to the petitioner. But it was not accepted in true spirit and the petitioner also did not respond whereupon the AIDC was compelled to issue advertisement for sale of the unit in question. The offer made by the respondents being highest was accepted and it was communicated to the respondent No. 6 vide impugned order dated 2.4.2002. The AIDC has also denied the allegation of stock of raw materials in the factory premises and stating that there was no raw materials etc. at the time of taking over the unit as the taking over was in presence of the Executive Magistrate, police personnel and representative of the petitioner-company which reflected, from the possession certificate dated 1.3.2000. The respondent AIDC, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner also filed affidavit-in-reply. 5. From the certificate of possession dated 1.3.2000, Annexure-15 series, filed by the respondent-AIDC, we find that the unit was taken over by the AIDC on 1.3.2000 and taking over the said unit was never disturbed or set-aside by this Court in earlier writ petition. The petitioner have also not challenged the same in the present writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the sale of the unit to the private respondents mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not informed and that the alleged sale was in violation of the terms of the advertisement. 6. So far the decision of the AIDC for sale of the unit is concerned, we find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no fault committed by the AIDC. 6. So far the decision of the AIDC for sale of the unit is concerned, we find that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no fault committed by the AIDC. The unit was sold to the petitioner in the year, 1992 and although the possession was handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner failed to pay the principal amount and dragged the matter from this or that count forcing the respondent to take over the unit under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. 7. That the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the subsequent sale to the respondent No. 6 was in violation of the sale notice dated 30.11.2001, as the respondent had not paid the deposited earnest money. The sale notice published in 'Economics Times' on 30.11.2001 provides that "earnest money in the form of demand draft amounting to the 1% of the price quoted should be submitted along with the offer in favour of the AIDC". Admittedly, the respondent No. 6 has not deposited the earnest money. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner did not participate in the said sale process and it is submitted that it has no locus standi to challenge the same. 8. The respondent AIDC has also filed additional affidavit. The private respondent No. 6 on the other hand, submitted that in the sale notice there was no mention regarding the consequences of non-submission of earnest money, and hence, it is submitted that the deposit of earnest money was directory and not mandatory. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the observation of this Court in the case of Purbottar Trade & Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Assam reported in 2000 (2) GLT 145. 9. In the present case, we find that being unable to realise their dues, the AIDC took over the Vegetable Oil Unit at Chandrapur and sold it to the petitioner in the year 1992 for a sum of Rs. 61 lakhs. The AIDC, however, failed to realise the sale price alongwith interest from the petitioner for next 10 years. The corporation tried to sell the unit and issued notice/advertisement in the Newspaper on as many as six occasions. Thereafter, against the sale notice dated 30.11.2001, although the receipt of bid/offers, none of the intending purchasers submitted earnest money. 61 lakhs. The AIDC, however, failed to realise the sale price alongwith interest from the petitioner for next 10 years. The corporation tried to sell the unit and issued notice/advertisement in the Newspaper on as many as six occasions. Thereafter, against the sale notice dated 30.11.2001, although the receipt of bid/offers, none of the intending purchasers submitted earnest money. The AIDC, therefore, waive the requirement of the earnest money in respect of all the bidees and in lieu thereof, provided to accept the bid money, if entire money is paid in one instalment. This was apparently done to secure the payment as they had burnt their finger in the earlier occasion. It is submitted that pursuant to the acceptance of the offer by the AIDC, respondent No. 6 deposited the entire amount of 34 lakhs at one instalment and the possession was handed over to him. 10. Now the question is whether this Court would like to interfere in its writ jurisdiction under Article246 of the Constitution of non-payment of earnest money when we find that entire bid money of Rs. 34 lakhs have been deposited by the party. 11. In this connection we may refer the following observations of the Apex Court where it was held that the power of Court while reviewing the administrative action is not that of an appellate Court. In the case of Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills reported in the Apex Court held that the observations in the case of Mahesh Chandra, reported in do not lay down the correct law arid the said decision was over-looked. The Apex Court, further, observed : "The fairness required of the Corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. The matter can be looked at from another angle. The Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by and functions and obligations to discharge. As such in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The view it forms and decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. As such in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The view it forms and decisions it takes are on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives and according to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide, even a wrong decision by it is not open to challenge, it is not for the Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or businesslike it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. As was observed by this Court in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd. in commercial matters the courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to whom that task is assigned. As was rightly observed by this Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Micro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P.) Ltd. in the matter of action by the Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 29 of the Act, the scope of judicial review is confined to two circumstances, i.e., (a) where there is statutory violation on the part of State Financial Corporation, or (b) where State Financial Corporation Acts unfairly, i.e., unreasonably. While exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution"), the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the Acts and deeds of the Corporation. Similarly, the courts other than the High Courts are not to interfere with action under Section 29 of the Act unless the aforesaid two situations exist." 12. In the instant case, we find, that there was no statutory violation on the part of the Corporation and they were also acted reasonably. The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the same on the ground of non-payment of earnest money, whereas the purchaser-respondent No. 6 has deposited the entire offered money of Rs. 34 lakhs. On the other hand, the petitioner took advantage of the leniency shown to him and although the unit was purchased by him in the year 1992, for the next 10 years, he delayed the payment on this or that plea and hence, it does not lie in the mouth of one time waiver the condition of deposit of earnest money. In the facts and circumstances of the present case was unwarranted. In the facts and circumstances of the present case was unwarranted. Further the petitioner had never participated in the above process of sale. 13. In the present case, we find that the respondent-authority have already disposed of the unit and realised the money due to petitioner. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to set out the matter but he failed. 14. We, therefore, find no basis to interfere and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 15. There is no order as to costs.