Judgment :- By consent of parties, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal together as the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, in the sense that in writ petition No.17200 of 2005 auction notice is challenged and in writ petition No.32269 of 2005 auction sale is challenged. The arguments advanced are one and the same for both the cases and the parties are also the same. .2. The petitioner in both these writ petitions is the borrower. The subsequent purchaser has impleaded herself as a party (fourth respondent in the former writ petition and third respondent in the latter writ petition). The Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation, the secured creditor, represented by its officers are Respondents 1 to 3 in the former and respondents 1 and 2 in the latter writ petitions. .3. The facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petitions proceed as follows: .The petitioner obtained a term loan in a sum of Rs.15.47 lakhs on 27.08.1993 for the purpose of purchasing machinery and a loan under hire purchase finance scheme in a sum of Rs.34.97 lakhs on 20.10.1997. The petitioner offered the machinery so purchased and the land and building situated at No.12, Owlia Sahib Street, Chennai-2, as primary and collateral security respectively for the above said loans. It is the case of the petitioner that because of change of the policy of the Government, her competitors were allowed to purchase second hand machineries for printing and thus they rendered cheaper service which made the petitioner to sustain loss and sought for waiver. But the respondents foreclosed the loan by their letter dated 17.05.2001 and directed the petitioner to repay the entire amount with interest in one lumpsum. As the petitioner has already broken down financially, the demand could not be met by the petitioner and thereupon the respondent brought the movable and immovable property offered as securities for sale by causing an advertisement in Tamil daily Thina thanthi on 13.01.2005. 4. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the respondent in bringing the security for sale by filing writ petition No.5176 of 2005 and obtained a conditional interim order of making certain payments within the time granted by this Court. 4. The petitioner challenged the propriety of the respondent in bringing the security for sale by filing writ petition No.5176 of 2005 and obtained a conditional interim order of making certain payments within the time granted by this Court. As there was certain ambiguity in the interim order, in the sense that in one place the amount directed to be paid was stated as Rs.5.00 lakhs and in another place as Rs.50.00 lakhs, the petitioner filed WPMP. No.13547 of 2005 for clarification after putting the respondents counsel on notice. While that being so, on 14.05.2005 another advertisement has been issued in the same newspaper for sale of the machineries in auction. The correctness of the same is challenged in writ petition No.17200 of 2005 and interim order of stay of further proceedings is obtained. 5. The collateral immovable property was also brought for sale by arbitrarily invoking section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act and the sale of the property was effected for a paltry sum of Rs.30.45 lakhs for recovery of huge amount inflated with interest in crores of rupees. Hence, the sale made in favour of the auction purchaser respondent on 22.02.2005 is sought to be quashed in the latter writ petition (WP.32269 of 2005). 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that (1) no proper publication has been made for sale of the property in question. It is accepted principle of law that financial corporations, while acting to recover the amount, has to act in a fair and reasonable manner. When the respondents themselves have granted loan on collateral security and machineries over and above Rs.50.00 lakhs, the sale of the property for a throw away price of Rs.30.45 lakhs cannot be regarded as a fair and reasonable. (2) The accounting procedure adopted by the respondent is totally strange. The respondents have capitalised the interest and penal interest and according to the petitioner the rate of interest worked out to nearly 36% which is impermissible in law and which has to be scaled down. (3) The account produced by the respondents is not acceptable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per the accounts furnished by the respondents, interest has been capitalised every month which is impermissible in law. 7. (3) The account produced by the respondents is not acceptable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner as per the accounts furnished by the respondents, interest has been capitalised every month which is impermissible in law. 7. On the above said three grounds auction conducted by the respondents in respect of immovable property which has been offered as security and the auction notice issued in respect of the movable properties are put in issue in these writ petitions. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavits and contended, inter alia, that after receipt of the amount of Rs.15.47 lakhs on 27.08.1993 and Rs.34.97 lakhs on 20.10.1997 under Hire Purchase Scheme, the petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan, as per the terms of the contract. As the amount due to the respondent Corporation was mounting, the respondents foreclosed the loan by issue of notice dated 17.05.2001 recalling the entire amount outstanding. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner filed a civil suit in C.S. No.716 of 2001 and obtained interim stay on the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.5.00 lakh before 30.06.2002 and another sum of Rs.10.00 lakh before 31.08.2002. The petitioner failed to comply with the order and paid Rs.6.00 lakhs out Rs.15.00 lakhs so ordered. 9. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the respondents for waiver and the respondents granted maximum waiver concession of Rs.42.48 laks to the petitioner and advised the petitioner by their letter dated 04.04.2003 to remit the balance amount. Here again, the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. Hence, the waiver granted was treated as withdrawn and the same was indicated by letter dated 18.09.2003. Even after giving credit to all the amounts paid, the amount still due from the petitioner was Rs.2,04,84,837/- as on 28.02.2006. 10. According to the respondents, formalities for bringing the property for sale have been scrupulously complied with by causing publication in two popular dailies - one in vernacular popular daily Dhina Thanthi and another in Economic times. More than four occasions the properties have been brought to sale and there was no bidders in two occasion and on certain other occasions the amount offered was too low. Thus, the highest bid amount offered in a sum of Rs.30.45 lakhs in the fifth auction has been accepted and the same has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. Thus, the highest bid amount offered in a sum of Rs.30.45 lakhs in the fifth auction has been accepted and the same has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. When the action of the respondents is fair and proper in bringing the property for sale, that cannot be questioned before this Court, that too, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of the points raised in the writ petitions. 11. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. In order to satisfy whether the procedural formalities have been duly complied with by the respondents, this Court directed the respondents counsel to produce the relevant file and the same has been produced in a bulk volume and it has also been perused. .12. It is very well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in a matter between the Corporation and its debtors, the Court has no say except in two situations – one is that - where there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation and the other - where the Corporation has acted unfairly and unreasonably. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot and rather shall not sit in appeal over the acts and duties of the financial Corporation and seek to correct them. The doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ Courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. Unless the action of the financial Corporation is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the Courts or third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or business-like, it may be, for the decision of the Financial Corporation. The financial Corporations cannot wait indefinitely to recover its dues. The fairness required of them cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. 13. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there is no proper and due publication of the sale of the property in question. 14. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner to the following decisions: Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Madras v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 595 ; Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 151 . 14. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner to the following decisions: Chairman and Managing Director, SIPCOT, Madras v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 595 ; Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 151 . S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166 . Jammigumpula Sivaiah v. A.P.State Financial Corporation, (2004) 13 SCC 653 These are all cases which state the power under section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, must be exercised bona fidely and fairly. In a matter of sale held by the State Financial Corporation, it must act in accordance with the statute and must not act unfairly or unreasonably, else, its action would be amenable to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reasonableness to be tested against dominant consideration to secure the best price for the mortgaged property. To secure best price adequate publicity must be given to ensure maximum effective participation by bidders by giving them fair and practical period of time, and opportunity should be given to the bidders to inspect the property and giving a considered offer with necessary financial support. .15. It is clear from the letter dated 010. 2003 of the respondents that the petitioner was informed about the intention of the respondent Corporation to bring the assets for sale if the petitioner did not settle the accounts within the time given in the letter. As there was no response from the petitioner, the respondent Corporation by letter dated 210. 2003 informed the petitioner about the auction sale to be conducted on 011. 2003. A wide publicity has been given for the sale of the property in two dailies – one in vernacular Dhina Thanthi, which is one of the dailies having highest circulation in Tamilnadu. In order to have the upper class people informed and make them to participate in the auction, publication was also caused in the English daily Economic times, which also has equal reputation and wide circulation. As seen from the file and in the counter affidavit, there was no bidder in the auction held on 011. 2003. The respondent Corporation brought the properties for re-auction on 212. 2003 after intimating the same to the petitioner by letter dated 112. 2003 again after giving wide publicity in the above two dailies Thina thanthi and Economic Times. As seen from the file and in the counter affidavit, there was no bidder in the auction held on 011. 2003. The respondent Corporation brought the properties for re-auction on 212. 2003 after intimating the same to the petitioner by letter dated 112. 2003 again after giving wide publicity in the above two dailies Thina thanthi and Economic Times. In that auction there was an offer of Rs.7.00 lakhs only and the same was rejected as the offer was too low. Again the collateral security was brought for sale on 11.03.2004 and on 212. 2004 after intimating the petitioner by letters dated 04.03.2004 and 12. 2004 respectively and giving proper advertisement as stated above. In the third auction held on 11.03.2004 there were no bidders and in the fourth auction held on 212. 2004 there was an offer of Rs.22.11 lakhs, which was also rejected, as the offer so made was not considered to be fair. The collateral security was brought to sale again by auction on 27.01.2005 by giving notice to the petitioner on 13.01.2005. Apart from the notice to the petitioner, auction sale was already published in the dailies Dhina thanthi and Economic Times. In the said auction, the auction purchaser respondent offered a sum of Rs.30.45 lakhs. Having regard to the earlier offers made right from the year 2003 to 2005 on various occasions, the offer made by the auction purchaser respondent in the fifth auction, which was conducted on due intimation and publicity as was done earlier, was accepted and on she paying the amount, the sale was confirmed. Hence, the action of the respondents in bringing the property for sale and confirming the same as stated above cannot be held to be unfair and unreasonable. .16. Apart from that, the respondents have also made individual communications to 14 individuals and 71 builders/real estate firms and 27 photo colour labs in the month of January, 2005. Some among them are -Chaithanya Builders & Leasing P. Ltd., Alfatah Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Siva Vishnu Real Estate, Paradise Builders, Amarnath builders, Abu Estates Private Ltd., Ananthi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Anand Builders and to Konica colour Lab, My Photo studio, Essen Colour lab, Elegant photographers, Dass colour lab, etc., by giving details regarding date of inspection, date and time of public auction, last date for submission of tenders, and Opening of sealed tenders. It could be seen from the above, that in respect of the building, in addition to the publicity caused in the newspapers, individual letters were also issued to the builders who would be more interested to buy the property and to the photographers-studios who would readily come forward to purchase the photo-printing machinery. 17. From the file, it is clear that all the procedural formalities, as provided in the various decisions of the apex Court, have been properly followed and complied with. Hence, the action of the respondents in bringing the property for sale cannot be regarded as unfair or unreasonable. Merely because the auction sale was confirmed at Rs.30.45 lakhs cannot by itself be put against the respondent Corporation in the above stated factual position and having regard to the effective steps taken by the respondents for selling the property. 18. In respect of the other contention that the respondent has capitalised the penal interest, thereby contravening the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra, AIR 2001 SC 3095 , this Court called upon the respondents to produce the file to find out the way in which the interest and penal interest were calculated and dealt with. The petitioner filed a detailed statement wherein the principal repayment schedule and various amounts paid by the petitioner which has been given credit to for interest as well as principal amount has been placed before this Court. The penal interest has been separately calculated and as per the accounts, it has not been capitalised. Hence, the amalgum of the amount is the accumulation of the principal and interest of quarterly rests as contracted by the petitioner, which is permissible in law. Hence, the contention contrary to the same raised by the petitioner has to be and is rejected. 19. The last of the contentions is that the accounting procedure is not fair and proper. I am of the view that this contention cannot be raised before this court. If at all that could have been raised in the suit filed by the petitioner, as against the foreclosure, notice, in C.S. No.716 of 2001. The petitioner though obtained conditional interim order, but failed even to comply with it in toto, but complied with it in part. Subsequently, the suit was withdrawn. If at all that could have been raised in the suit filed by the petitioner, as against the foreclosure, notice, in C.S. No.716 of 2001. The petitioner though obtained conditional interim order, but failed even to comply with it in toto, but complied with it in part. Subsequently, the suit was withdrawn. Likewise, as against the auction notice dated 13.01.2005 the petitioner filed writ petition No.5176 of 2005 and obtained conditional interim order for payment of Rs.50.00 lakhs on or before a particular date, but did not comply with it under the guise that there was some ambiguity in the order and filed a petition for clarification. Even that application has not been brought before the Court and order obtained. It is rather strange that even writ petition No.5176 of 2005 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. 20. Even that application has not been brought before the Court and order obtained. It is rather strange that even writ petition No.5176 of 2005 has been withdrawn by the petitioner. 20. In the above stated factual situation of the case, I am of the view that the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 456 -wherein after analysing all the earlier decision, right from the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, UP Financial Corpn., (1993) 2 SCC 279 , and the last of the Karnatka State Financial Corporation v. Mincro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P) Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 65 , which include the decisions on which reliance was placed by the petitioner, i.e., S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2004) 7 SCC 166 , has held that interference under Article 226 is called for only if the action is unfair or unreasonable or is in violation of any statutory provision; the doctrine of fairness cannot be invoked to the extent of disabling the Corporation from recovering the amount due to it while not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him; and reasonableness of the action has to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price and if all these above said procedures are followed, challenge to the contrary would not lie before the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would squarely cover the issue in favour of the respondent Corporation, in the sense that the respondent Corporation has taken a conscious decision to foreclose the loan amount as the amount due to the respondent was mounting and it was properly intimated as stated above by a letter and subsequent to that section 29 proceedings have been initiated and conducted in a fair and reasonable manner. When these two conditions are satisfied as per the above said judgment, the Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate authority over administrative authorities and interfere in a proceedings under Section 29 of the Act, which has been fairly and reasonably conducted. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. 21. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed. No costs. 21. The respondent Corporation is directed to remove the machineries from the premises in question and allow the auction purchaser to take possession of the property. WPMP No.8308 of 2006 is ordered accordingly. WPMPs. Nos.18676 and 35182 of 2005 are dismissed.