H. S. MUNSHA, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED Advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner seeks to issue writ of this court for getting directions against Gujarat State Finance corporation (hereinafter referred to as "g. S. F. C. " for the sake of convenience and brevity) to disburse Term Loan to the tune of Rs. 30,77,000/- and Soft Loan to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. ( 2 ) LEARNED advocate appearing for the petitioner mainly submitted that the petitioner has applied for Term Loan and soft loan from GSFC. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is intending to run an industries of cotton ginning and pressing. The petitioner has altered its position by performing several procedure as required by G. S. F. C. for sanction of the loans. It is averred by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner has to apply to various authorities for certificate of title clearance, registration certificate from the Director of Small Scale Industries, registration certificate of partnership firm, valuation report of the immovable property of the petitioner from the authorised Valuer-Civil Engineer, permission of Non-agriculture Use of the land etc. , and all these documents have been provided by the petitioner before G. S. F. C. from time to time. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that upon due verification and fulfillment of the requirements as to the documents as stated hereinabove, ultimately G. S. F. C. sanctioned loans vide communication dated 3-10-2001, whereby G. S. F. C. sanctioned Term Loan to the tune of Rs. 30,77,000/-and Soft Loan (NEF loan) to the extent Rs. 10,00,000/ -. It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that there were certain conditions precedent for sanctioning the loans and conditions precedent have already been complied with including that of promoters commitment. The petitioner has also purchased the land admeasuring 4046 sq. Mtrs. bearing Revenue Survey no. 293 of Rajsitapur at the cost of Rs. 4,23,500/- and the certificate of struc tural condition of the building has also been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Engineer/valuer. Thus, the petitioner has complied with and fulfilled all the conditions as envisaged by G. S. F. C. for disbursement of the loans. Mtrs. bearing Revenue Survey no. 293 of Rajsitapur at the cost of Rs. 4,23,500/- and the certificate of struc tural condition of the building has also been issued in favour of the petitioner by the Civil Engineer/valuer. Thus, the petitioner has complied with and fulfilled all the conditions as envisaged by G. S. F. C. for disbursement of the loans. Time and again the petitioner has approached but the loans have not been disbursed to the petitioner and the respondent should be directed to disburse the loans already sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE respondent G. S. F. C. has filed the affidavit. Learned advocate for the respondent has mainly submitted that there two types of loans namely (i) Term Loan and Soft Loan which are usually given at lesser rate of interest. The aforesaid loans were sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by G. S. F. C. vide its letter dated 3-10-2001 on certain terms and conditions. It was further intimated to the petitioner by G. S. F. C. vide its letter dated 6-4-2002 to withdraw the aforesaid sanctioned loans. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent g. S. F. C. that aforesaid amounts of sanctioned loans were not withdrawn by the petitioner. On the contrary, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he requested g. S. F. C. to extend the time for withdrawal of amounts of sanctioned loans and said request of the petitioner was turned down by G. S. F. C. vide its letter dated 15/17-7-2002. However, the petitioner once again addressed the letter dated 25-7-2002 to G. S. F. C. for extension of time for withdrawal of the amounts of loans sanctioned by G. S. F. C. and this second request of the petitioner was rejected by G. S. F. C. vide its letter dated 5-8-2002. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that aforesaid both decisions rejecting the requests of the petitioner were taken by the head office of G. S. F. C. at Gandhinagar and the petitioner was also informed that the request for extension of time for withdrawal of the amounts of sanctioned loans was granted. None the less, instead of withdrawing the aforesaid loan amounts, consistently the petitioner insisted for extension of time. None the less, instead of withdrawing the aforesaid loan amounts, consistently the petitioner insisted for extension of time. From this behaviour and conduct of the petitioner, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was not interested to withdraw the amounts of sanctioned loans, at any point of time, for the reasons best known to him. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in spite of repeated refusal for extension of time for withdrawal of the amounts of sanctioned loan, the petitioner once again addressed the letter dated 24-10-2002 to the General Manager, G. S. F. C. for extension of time for withdrawal of loan amounts and ultimately time was extended by G. S. F. C. up to 31-3-2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed to approach State Bank of Saurashtra since G. S. F. C. was not in a position to disburse the amounts of the loans sanctioned in favour of the petitioner in near future. The letter dated 21-10-2002 was also written to the petitioner with specific instructions to approach State Bank of Saurashtra to avail credit facilities. ( 4 ) LEARNED advocate for the respondent submitted that because of adverse financial condition and weak cash flow, the decision was taken by G. S. F. C. on 3-7-2002 to the effect that no further disbursement be made by G. S. F. C. , copy of same is also placed on the record of this case along with the affidavit -in-reply. None the less, the petitioner was helped by the Sr. Officer of G. S. F. C. by way of providing credit facility by State Bank of Saurashtra but the same was also not availed by the petitioner. Initially, though the loans were sanctioned the petitioner did not avail the same. It is also contended by the learned advocate for the respondent that G. S. F. C. is passing through a critical financial position as it has incurred heavy loss, as under :