ORDER R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Prasad Sr. Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Allam and S.K. Verma, S.C. (Mines) on behalf of the respondent State. 2. Both the connected cases were heard together and are being disposed off by a common order. 3. In W.P. (C) No. 3192 of 2004, petitioner has challenged the award dated 30.11.2000. passed in Award Case No. 74 of 98 (Annexure-17), the appellate order dated 14.2.2001 (Annexure-18) and the certificate proceeding being Certificate Case No. 8 of 2000-01 filed on the basis of the said award. 4. It appears that in Award Case No.74/98, petitioner appeared but inspite of reminders did not file any show cause. Ultimately, a decree was passed against the petitioner ex parte and Bank was given the liberty to realize the dues by filing certificate Case. 5. Petitioner filed an appeal, being Award Appeal No. 2 of 2001, which was also dismissed on 14.2.2001. Thereafter a certificate case being Certificate Case No. 8 of 2001 was filed, in which, petitioner filed its objection, which was also rejected. An appeal preferred against the said rejection, was also dismissed. 6. Petitioner got and availed sufficient opportunity to defend/dispute the claim of the Bank but did no succeed in any of the proceedings. Then he filed a suit for permanent injunction in which an interim injunction in the certificate case has been granted, against which an appeal filed by the Bank is pending before this Court being Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2002. 7. In the facts and circumstances, noted above, in may opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 8. In W.P. (C) No. 3196 of 2004, petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the Bank (respondent No. 1) to allow the petitioner to sell a part of the mortgaged property for liquidating the loan. 9. Admittedly, the Bank did not agree to this proposal and resisted the attempt to sell by the petitioner by a public notice as far back as on 19th June, 1998 (Annexure-15/1). 10. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to issue such direction to the Bank in this contractual matter. 11. In may opinion, by filing these two frivolous writ petitions, petitioner has tried to abuse the process of the Court. 12. In the result, these two writ petitions are dismissed.