Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The unsuccessful writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 35481 of 2001 is the appellant herein. 1. 2.1. Theappellant is said to have obtained loan from the respondent – Karnataka State Financial Corporation ('Corporation' for short) to put up a hotel at Chitradurga. The loan amount of Rs. 1,500 lakhs was sanctioned to the appellant by the Corporation on 12.12.1992; additional term loan of Rs. 2. 4.74 lakhs was sanctioned on 12.2.1992; and the second sanctioned on 27.4.1996. As the appellant committed default in repayment, action was taken against him for recovery of the outstanding loan, which ultimately culminated into a decree against him and consequential sale of the hotel by order dated 19.7.2001, whereunder the property was sold for Rs.20.00 lakhs to the 3rd respondent. According to the appellant, he had an offer for Rs.60.00 lakhs, however it was sold only for Rs.20.00 lakhs as the property was auctioned by the respondents despite his objection. If the property had been sold for a reasonable market price, there would have been no due to the respondent- Corporation by the appellant. Therefore aggrieved by the said sale held on 19.7.2001, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 35481/2001 and got an interim order depositing Rs.20.00 lakhs as the sale was already confirmed. 1. 2.2. The respondent-Corporation resisted the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner himself has stated that he could not bring the better offer and therefore they were constrained to bring the impugned property for public auction. Only after confirmation of the sale held on 19.7.2001, the appellant claim that the impugned hotel could be sold between Rs.48.00 lakhs and Rs.67.001akhs. The Corporation also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that even though the appellant was given an opportunity to bring a better offer, he did not bring the same and unnecessarily went on postponing and seeking time. 2. 2.3. In the meanwhile, the successful bidder who participated in the auction held, took possession of the impugned hotel. 3. 2.4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge by order dated 22.3.2007 taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner was also permitted to deposit Rs.20.00 lakhs with the respondent-Corporation, directed the said Corporation to take a lenient view in the matter held as hereunder: "11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. 3. 2.4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge by order dated 22.3.2007 taking note of the fact that the writ petitioner was also permitted to deposit Rs.20.00 lakhs with the respondent-Corporation, directed the said Corporation to take a lenient view in the matter held as hereunder: "11. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. However, the respondent - KSFC is hereby directed to consider the request of the petitioner reasonably for One Time Settlement while insisting for further payment of the balance taking note of the above observations. The petitioner by paying a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- in lump sum can purchase the property independently as already the sale is being confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent, this fact has been taken into consideration on the ground that the 3rd respondent has made use of the property to accommodate the students and also to reduce the rate of interest, as a matter of One Time Settlement. The Respondent-KSFC as a matter of One Time Settlement shall give all such concessions taking into consideration the value of the property and also that the payment was made to the respondent– KSFC subsequently by the petitioner. The Petitioner shall approach the Respondent–KSFC for One Time Settlement within six months and also approach the 3rd respondent to complete the sale transaction for Rs. 35,00,000/-". 1. 3. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.3.2007, the unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 2. 4. Accordingto Mr. G.S. Bhat, learned Counsel for the appellant, when the sale confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent for selling the impugned property for a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs is grossly minimum when compared to the offer the appellant got for a sum of Rs.67.00 lakhs, the sale could not have been confirmed in favour of the 3rd respondent. Secondly, the Corporation had not followed the procedure laid down to attract the best offer for the sale of the impugned hotel. In this regard, learned Counsel places reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court: 1. 1. (2002) 3 SCC 496 (Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another) 2. 2. (2004) 13 SCC 653 (Jammigumpula Sivaia Vs. A.P. State Financial Corporation) (Paragraphs 6 and 7) 3. 3. (1995) 4 SCC 595 (Chairman and Managing Director, Sipcot, Madras and Others Vs. Contromix Private Limited) (Paragraphs 11 and 12) 4. 4. 1. (2002) 3 SCC 496 (Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another) 2. 2. (2004) 13 SCC 653 (Jammigumpula Sivaia Vs. A.P. State Financial Corporation) (Paragraphs 6 and 7) 3. 3. (1995) 4 SCC 595 (Chairman and Managing Director, Sipcot, Madras and Others Vs. Contromix Private Limited) (Paragraphs 11 and 12) 4. 4. (2005) 4 SCC 456 (Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited Vs. Cavalet India Limited and Others) (Paragraphs 15 and 20) and 5. 5. (1993) 2 SCC 279 (Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation and Others) 5. We heard learned Counsel at length. It is true that Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act confers wide power on the Corporation to ensure prompt payment by arming it with effective measures to realise the arrears. In case of recovery proceedings of the financial Corporation, if a ground is made out that the Corporation had acted unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and mala fide, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution should be exercised carefully. Every wide power, the exercise of which has far-reaching repercussion, has inherent limitation on it. It should be exercised to effectuate the purpose of the Act. In legislations enacted for general benefit and common good the responsibility is far graver. It demands purposeful approach. The exercise of discretion should be objective. Test of reasonableness is more strict. The public functionaries should be duty conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions which touch the common man have to be tested on the touchstone of fairness and justice. That which is not fair and just is unreasonable. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. An arbitrary action is ultra vires. It is in this regard, the Apex Court in Mahesh Chandra Vs. Regional Manager, UPFC in (1993) 2 SCC 279 has given the guidelines to be followed while exercising the power under Section 29 of the Act and the directions of the Apex Court are extracted hereunder: "Every endeavour should be made to make, the unit viable and be put in working condition. It is becomes workable 1) Sale of a unit should always be made by public auction. It is becomes workable 1) Sale of a unit should always be made by public auction. 2) Valuation of a unit for purposes of determining adequacy of offer or for determining if bid offered was adequate, should always be intimated to the unit holder to enable him to file objection if any as he is vitally interested in getting the maximum price; 3) If tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder. 4) a) If a unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transferred to him. And the arrears remaining thereafter should be rescheduled to be recovered in installments with interest after the payment of last installment fixed under the agreement entered into as a result of tendered amount; b) If he brings third parties with higher offer it would be tested and may be accepted. 5) Sale by private negotiation should be permitted only in very large concerns where investment runs in very huge amount for which ordinary buyer may not be available or the industry itself may be of such nature that many normal buyers may not be available. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. 6) Request of the unit holder to release any part of the property on which the concern is not standing of which he is the owner should normally be granted on condition that sale proceeds shall be deposited in loan account." 6. Whenever grievance is brought to the notice of the Court seeking a judicial review under Article 226 highlighting the arbitrary and unfairness in the matter of recovery proceedings by the Financial Corporation, the Apex Court again in Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited Vs. Cavalet India Limited and Others, referred to above settled the legal principles where the High Court can interfere with such recovery proceedings exercising the judicial review as hereunder: .(i) The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an appellate Authority over the acts and deeds 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. The doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ Courts into Appellate Authorities over administrative authorities. .(ii) Ina matter between the Corporation and its debtor, a writ Court has no say except in two situations: .(a) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation or .(b) where the Corporation acts unfairly, i.e., unreasonably. (iii) In commercial matters, the Courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to which that task is assigned. .(iv) 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 a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent, commercial or business like it may be, for the decision of the Financial Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable. .(v) In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold and this could be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. .(vi) Public auction is not the only mode to secure the best price by inviting maximum public participation, tender and negotiation could also be adopted. (vii) The Financial Corporation is always expected to try and realise the maximum sale price by selling the assets by following a procedure which is transparent and acceptable, after due publicity, wherever possible and if any reason is indicated or cause shown for the default, the same 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 the seized unit have to be worked out. (viii) Fairness cannot be a one-way street. The fairness required of the Financial Corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the Financial Corporation alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. (ix) Reasonableness is to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price. (emphasis supplied) 7. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the Financial Corporation alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. (ix) Reasonableness is to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price. (emphasis supplied) 7. Again in Chairman and Managing Director, Sipcot, Madras and Others Vs. Contromix Private Limited in (1995) 4 SCC 595 , the Apex Court has observed in the matter of disposing of the property by an instrumentality of the State viz., Financial Corporation as hereunder: "12. In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. Public auction after adequate publicity ensures participation of every person who is interested in purchasing the property and generally secures the best price. But many times it may not be possible to secure the best price by public auction when the bidders join together so as to depress the bid or the nature of the property to be sold is such that suitable bid may not be received at public auction. In that event, the other suitable mode for selling of property can be by inviting tenders. In order to ensure that such sale by calling tenders does not escape attention of an intending participant, it is essential that every endeavour should be made to give wide publicity so as to get the maximum price." 2. 8. Time and again, the Apex Court insists in the matter of public auction for recovery of the outstanding loan emphasising the wide publicity and transparency in the auction (vide (2002) 3 SCC 496 and (2004) 13 SCC 653 }; so that the Corporation while recovering the outstanding dues shall see that there is no unjust, unfair, unreasonable or male fide action; and on the other hand, Corporation should see that the property would fetch more sale consideration so that the burden of the dafaulters also would be correspondingly reduced. 3. 9. 3. 9. Based on the well-settled decisions referred to above, the learned Counsel for appellant emphasised that in the impugned transaction the Corporation has failed to follow the well-settled terms and guidelines given by the Apex Court while recovering the impugned loan from the writ petitioner. 4. 10. No doubt, wherever a case is brought to the notice of this Court establishing an element of arbitrariness, unfairness, mala fide attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India, there should not be a slightest hesitation to interfere in such matters exercising the power ofjudicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. But, in the instant case, more than 10 times, advertisements were given for the sale of the impugned property for recovery of the outstanding dues and even though notice was issued for 10 times by way of paper publication, writ petitioner did not make payment. These are the facts on record before the learned Single Judge as observed in paragraph 10 of the order. The loan was taken in 1992; auction sale was confirmed in 2001 and writ petition was filed immediately thereafter. It is for this reason, the Apex Court has also observed in Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited Vs. Cavalet India Limited and Others in (2005) 4 SCC 456 ) that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the acts and deeds of the Financial Corporation and seek to correct them and the doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ Courts into Appellate Authorities over administrative authorities. Even though the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution has got inherent power, we also have self restraint limitation in exercising the power under Article 226 more-so in the matter of commercial matters where the Courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to which that task is assigned because `fairness cannot be a one-way street' and the fairness required of the Financial Corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them (vide (2005) 4 SCC 456 ). It is apparent on the face of record that the appellant-borrower had no intention of repaying despite 10 times notice. If at all anyone, it is the appellant himself who has invited the burden or over burden on him. It is apparent on the face of record that the appellant-borrower had no intention of repaying despite 10 times notice. If at all anyone, it is the appellant himself who has invited the burden or over burden on him. Hence, we are in a helpless situation to rescue the appellant/writ petitioner. Hence finding no merit, Writ Appeal is dismissed.