Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. There is no appearance for the second respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent bearing No.T.THOMK/Villupuram/2002-2003, dated 1. 2003, and quash the same and to direct the second respondent to disburse the sanctioned amount of Rs.1,12,000/-, towards the claim in respect of the Policy No.3171100405346, along with the interest, to the first respondent and to further direct the first respondent to re-schedule the loan by waiving the interest. 3. It has been stated that the petitioner had applied for a loan with the first respondent for the purchase of a Ashok Leyland Lorry. Pursuant to the application made by the petitioner, the first respondent had sanctioned a loan of Rs.4.30 lakhs, on 23. 98. The loan advanced by the first respondent had to be repaid in 56 monthly instalments. After paying a few instalments, the petitioner was not in a position to pay the remaining instalments. The lorry produced by the petitioner was covered with the second respondent with insurance Policy No.3171100405346. The period of the policy was from 20.7.98 to 199. Since the petitioner had spent a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to make the vehicle road worthy, he had to borrow money from outside sources. However, due to the non-payment of the instalments, the lorry had been seized by the first respondent and it was sold by public auction, on 211. 2001, for a sum of Rs.1,10,100/-and the said amount had been appropriated towards the loan amount. Thereafter, the first respondent had issued the impugned order to bring the property, given as security to the petitioner, for sale, for the balance amount due from the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had failed to take into consideration the failure of the second respondent to pay the insurance claim, after having sanctioned the same. The first respondent ought to have proceeded against the second respondent for the amount due from the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had failed to take into consideration the failure of the second respondent to pay the insurance claim, after having sanctioned the same. The first respondent ought to have proceeded against the second respondent for the amount due from the petitioner. The second respondent being a public sector Corporation ought not to have retained the insurance claim of the petitioner and it was duty bound, under the policy, to reimburse the same. The first respondent ought not to have seized the lorry when the second respondent had not disbursed the insurance claim in respect of the policy. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent had submitted that an interim order, dated 21. 2003, made in W.P.M.P.No.2617 of 2003, had been passed by this Court, granting an order of interim stay subject to the petitioner depositing one fourth of the amount claimed, within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. However, the petitioner had not complied with the same. It has been further stated that since the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents is of a contractual nature, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not refuted the statements made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. From the records available before this Court, it is clear that the petitioner had not complied with the contractual obligations by paying the instalments for the loan, which he had availed from the first respondent Corporation. Therefore, the first respondent had initiated necessary action against the petitioner, in accordance with law and the terms of the contract. In such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.