ORDER M. Jaichandren :- As similar issues are arising for consideration in both the writ petitions and since, the reliefs sought for are also similar in nature, a common order is passed by this court in the above writ petitions. It is stated that the second respondent, in W.P. (MD) No. 945 of 2008, who is doing business in purchase and sale of raw materials for the use in manufacture of safety matches, is an assessee, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. The second respondent had been assessed on the sales turnover of raw materials to the members of the Ramanathapuram District Cottage Match Manufacturers Association, for the years, from 1989-90 to 1999-2000, in the assessment order passed by the petitioner, on September 24, 2004. Accordingly, the second respondent has been in arrears of tax and penalty, as assessed by the petitioner. Therefore, revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated against the second respondent for collection of the arrears, by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. The immovable properties belonging to the second respondent were attached by issuing a notice, in form 4, on November 27, 2007. Therefore, a notice of attachment and publication of sale notice had been issued, on January 7, 2008. The third respondent, in W.P. (MD) No. 945 of 2008, is holding additional charge of the Ramanathapuram District Cottage Match Manufacturers Association, as an Administrator. Since the arrears had not been settled, even after the issuing of the notice, steps were taken by the petitioner to bring the immovable properties for public auction. On coming to know that the first respondent was taking steps to sell the properties of the second respondent, for the recovery of their loan amount, the petitioner had issued a notice to the first respondent, in form B6, on August 10, 2007, informing the first respondent about the arrears due from the second respondent and that the Government dues have prime charge over the properties of the second respondent, even though they had been attached and taken possession of by the first respondent, under section 13(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In such circumstances, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission had filed the writ petition, in W.P. (MD) No. 3713 of 2008, stating that the petitioner - industry, which has been established under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act, 1956, and functioning under the administrative control of the Government of India, had granted the loan to the tune of Rs. 238 lakhs to the third respondent, namely, the Ramanathapuram District Cottage Match Manufacturers Association, for the purpose of construction of buildings and for the purchase of raw materials, etc. The third respondent had mortgaged its properties with the petitioner. Since, the third respondent in the writ petition, namely, the Ramanathapuram District Cottage Match Manufacturers Association, had not repaid the loan amount, along with the interest thereon, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission had filed the writ petition, in W.P. (MD) No. 3713 of 2008, praying for a writ of certiorari, challenging the proceedings of the second respondent therein, in Na. Ka. A3/2365/04, dated January 7, 2008. At this stage of the hearing of the above writ petitions, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, had placed before this court, a decision of a Division Bench of this court, made in Indian Bank v. Commercial Tax Officer [2009] 25 VST 187; [2009] 6 MLJ 659, wherein, it has been held as follows : "The State Government can claim priority of debt over others in regard to the arrears of tax due to the State. However, when the assets are secured assets with the bank and the bank being the secured creditor and its debt being a secured debt, has its secured interest over the property, the principle of first charge/priority of State over the property will not be applicable." The learned counsels had also submitted that the issues arising for consideration in the present writ petitions are covered by the decision of the Division Bench. Therefore, in view of the said decision, the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 945 of 2009, stands dismissed and the writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 3713 of 2008 stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.