Judgment 1. The appellant filed writ Petition before the learned Single Bench of this Court with the following prayer. “1. to quash the letter dated 10.12.1999 (Annexure-5) issued by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation respondent No. 1; 2. to punish the defaulting officials for non-compliance of this Courts order dated 08.07.1993 passed in Writ Petition No. 1828/1992 and to award damages to the extent of difference of value in the property which was realisable legitimtely by auctioning the property by a public sale.” 2. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.02.2000 dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable in view of the order dated 08.07.1993 of the Division Bench passed on the writ petition earlier filed by the appellant. The said order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellant in the instant special appeal. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Division Bench of this Court on 08.07.1993 while partly allowing the writ petition of the appellant directed as under: “Consequently, we partly allow this writ petition only to the extent that we hereby quash Annexure-9 dated 18.02.1992 in so far as it had notified the sale of land, building and machineries of the petitioner company mortgaged with the RFC by inviting tenders and direct the RFC to first make an attempt to dispose of the unit by public auction and only if the RFC is unable to sell it by public auction or it does not reserve price/market price, the other methods in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra JT 1992 (2) SC 326 to sell the unit should be adopted. The above direction is subject to the condition if , during the pendency of the writ Petition, there being no stay order, the unit has not yet been transferred to a third party.” 4. Opportunity was provided to the respondents to file reply to the facts incorporated in the appeal since, the writ petition was dismissed summarily and the respondent RFC was not called upon by the learned Single Judge. In the reply the respondent averred that the fact that the appellant many a times met the respondent at Bhiwadi as well as at Jaipur was incorrect. It is contended that after taking over the possession of the unit, the respondent had conducted as many as 16 public auctions from 20.11.1992 till 012.1998. In the reply the respondent averred that the fact that the appellant many a times met the respondent at Bhiwadi as well as at Jaipur was incorrect. It is contended that after taking over the possession of the unit, the respondent had conducted as many as 16 public auctions from 20.11.1992 till 012.1998. The details of the auctions have been given in Para 5 of the reply. It is also contended that the auction advertisements were taken out in the news papers and the appellant was also informed to remain present as well as to bring any better buyer for the unit, but the respondent failed to fetch any market price for the land, building and plant and machinery of the unit and thereafter this unit was included in the list of counter sale under the scheme of Counter Sale of Units vide circular No. PG-800 dated 012.1998 and sale of units fixed assets i.e., land, building, plant and machinery was recommended to be approved by the auction committee for a consideration of Rs. 1.49.00 lacs on deferred payment basis on 30.11.1999 and notice to original loanees were also issued. Subsequently, the sale approval letter was issued on 10.12.1999 and vide conditional deed of conveyance dated 09.02.2000 sold out the fixed assets and possession was handed over to the purchaser on 09.02.2000. It is further contended that the RFC had acted in conformity with the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and had finally sold the units to Manish Kumar Agrawal, respondent No. 4. 5. We are satisfied that the directions issued by the Division Bench in the order dated 08.07.1993 have been complied with in letter and spirit by the respondent RFC. The Judgment rendered in Mahesh Chandras case (Supra) has been distinguished in Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. vs. M/s Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr., JT 2002 (1) SC 482 and it was held that “the view in Mahesh Chandras case appears to have been too widely expressed without taking note of ground realities and the intended object of the statute. If the guidelines as indicated are to be strictly followed, it would be giving premium to a dishonest borrower, it would not further interest of any corporation and consequently of the industrial undertaking intendings to avail financial assistance. It would only provide an unwarranted opportunity to the defaulter to stall recovery proceedings. If the guidelines as indicated are to be strictly followed, it would be giving premium to a dishonest borrower, it would not further interest of any corporation and consequently of the industrial undertaking intendings to avail financial assistance. It would only provide an unwarranted opportunity to the defaulter to stall recovery proceedings. It is not to be understood that in every case the corporations shall take recourse to action under Section 29. Procedure to be followed, needless to say, has to be considered in its proper perspective and a conscious decision has to be taken as to whether action under Section 29 of the Act is called for thereafter, the modalities for disposal of seized unit have to be worked out.” 6. For these reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Single Judge. The instant appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed without any order as to costs