JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — This writ application has been filed for a direction to the opposite party No.3 not to give effect to the sale notice published in the daily newspaper “The Samaj” dated 23.9.1999 and direct the opposite parties to allow monthly in¬stalments for payment of total defaulted amount. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Unit was established with financial assistance from Orissa State Financial Corporation for manufacturing confectioneries. The unit has been registered as a small scale industry. Initially in the year 1984 a Term Loan of Rs. 2,21,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party No.2 in favour of the deceased husband of the present proprietress of the unit and after death of the original loanee the proprietress of the petitioner-firm is looking after func¬tioning of the unit. Since the original entrepreneur died in the year 1991 functioning of the unit/factory got affected and only after transfer of the assets and liabilities in favour of the present proprietress the factory started functioning again and by the year 1997 there was default of Rs. 3,68,000/-. After re¬ceiving a notice of repayment of defaulted amount in February, 1997, Rs. 33,000/- was deposited on 31.3.97 which was adjusted towards interest component. Again a fresh noticed was issued on 30.6.1997 for payment of the defaulted amount which came to Rs. 3,35,561.38. After receipt of the said notice a sum of Rs. 1,03,000/- was deposited on 27.11.97 and on receipt of the said amount balance loan was rephrased by the Corporation which was to be paid back by five half-yearly instalments commencing from March, 1998. While the matter stood thus, on application of the petitioner, an additional Term Loan of Rs. 7,48,000/- was sanc¬tioned by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner in January, 1998. Thereafter the petitioner-firm started paying back loan amount in instalments. Again when there was default in payment of instalments, on 12.11.1998 the opposite party No.2 issued notice recalling the entire loan and directed the petitioner to pay back Rs. 9,47,112/- within thirty days. After receipt of the said notice, a letter was written by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 requesting for six months time to repay the defaulted principal and interest amounting to Rs. 1,10,775/-. 9,47,112/- within thirty days. After receipt of the said notice, a letter was written by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 requesting for six months time to repay the defaulted principal and interest amounting to Rs. 1,10,775/-. After receipt of the said letter/representation, prayer was rejected and the unit was taken over in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act on 5.1.1999. Thereafter the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- on 12.1.1999 and the Unit was released in favour of the proprietress. As it appears there was again default in payment and the outstanding defaulted dues as in June, 1999 had become Rs. 3,07,750/-. Thereafter, the Unit was again taken over on 9.9.1999 and a sale notice was published. Challenging the aforesaid sale notice, the present writ application has been filed. 3. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite par¬ties stating therein that after release of the Unit in favour of the proprietress in January, 1999, some hypothecated machineries were shifted illegally without permission or knowledge of the Corporation from the premises of the factory. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner-unit was a regular defaulter and by 30.6.1999, the total defaulted dues had become Rs. 9,41,358/-. Therefore, by this time the defaulted dues must be much above Rs. 10 lakhs. Shri Mukherji, learned Senior Advo¬cate appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is not possi¬ble on the part of the petitioner to deposit the entire defaulted dues and at best some amount can be deposited by the petitioner for release of the industrial unit so that only after the unit starts functioning and earning the defaulted dues can be cleared in instalments. We are unable to accept such contention since it appears from the averments made in the writ application as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties, the peti¬tioner unit is a regular defaulter and only when defaulted notice is served on it, some payment is made. The total outstanding dues as on date must be much above Rs. We are unable to accept such contention since it appears from the averments made in the writ application as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties, the peti¬tioner unit is a regular defaulter and only when defaulted notice is served on it, some payment is made. The total outstanding dues as on date must be much above Rs. 10 lakhs and the petitioner shall never be in a position to pay the said amount even if the unit is released and starts functioning.Moreover, there are seri¬ous allegation of shifting of machineries from the premises of the unit without permission or knowledge of the Financial Corpo¬ration and this aspect of the allegation made in the counter-affidavit has not been controverted. 4. In view of such conduction of the petitioner as stated above, we do not think that there is any justification for allow¬ing prayer of the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the action taken by the opposite par¬ties and dismiss the writ application. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Application dismissed.