JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J (Oral):-By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the sale of its Unit M/s Dhiman Rice Mills by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 may be set-aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner obtained a loan from respondent No.1-Corporation to establish and run a Rice Mill. It is not necessary to give details regarding the loan. It would suffice to say that after obtaining the loan in the years 2002-2003, the petitioner did not repay the loan and the industry of the petitioner was taken over by respondent No.1 on 1.3.2006. According to the respondent-Corporation, despite maximum accommodation given to the loanee, he did not repay the amount due and payable, hence, there was no other option but to take over the assets of the Unit in terms of Section 29 of State Financial Corporations Act,1951 hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act. 3. According to the respondent-Corporation, it had got the market value of the Unit assessed from M/s Himachal Consultancy Organization Ltd. in May, 2006, and the same was assessed at Rs.79.00 lacs. The sale notice was issued five times during the period 23.11.2006 to 15.3.2008, but adequate offer was not received and therefore the sale of the petitioner’s Unit was not finalized. The last advertisement was published in three newspapers on 15th March, 2008, in which one offer of Rs.46.00 lacs was received on 9th April, 2008 from one Shri Naveen Bahri. 4. Thereafter the Corporation felt that this amount was not commensurate with the true value of the property, which was assessed at Rs.79.00 lacs. It therefore issued a fresh maximum bid notice, which was published in three newspapers on 28th April, 2008, copy of which was also sent to the petitioner. In this maximum bid notice, it was clearly mentioned that the bids offered should not be less than Rs.46.00 lacs, which bid had already been received by the Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any bid in response to this notice. As per this notice, offers were to be negotiated on 14th May, 2008. As on 14th May, 2008, the respondent-Corporation received only two bids, one from the original bidder Shri Naveen Bahri and another from Sh. Ram Kumar of Hamirpur. Admittedly, the petitioner did not send any bid in response to this notice. As per this notice, offers were to be negotiated on 14th May, 2008. As on 14th May, 2008, the respondent-Corporation received only two bids, one from the original bidder Shri Naveen Bahri and another from Sh. Ram Kumar of Hamirpur. Negotiations were held and Shri Naveen Bahri increased his offer from Rs.46.00 lacs to Rs.60.00 lacs and Shri Ram Kumar, who had initially offered Rs.50.00 lacs increased his offer to Rs.55.00 lacs. 5. Before any other action could be taken on the offers made by Shri Naveen Bahri and Shri Ram Kumar, the Corporation allegedly received another bid on 15th May, 2008. This bid was received from M/s R.P. Singh and K.D. Sharma of Una, whereby they offered Rs.65.00 lacs and offered to pay the amount on down payment basis. They also deposited Rs.10,00 lacs along with their bid. The respondent-Corporation accepted the bid of M/s R.P. Singh and K.D. Sharma on 21st May, 2008 and possession of the property was handed over to successful bidder on 23rd May, 2008. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 has been given a back-door entry to the respondent No.2 in the bidding process. Admittedly, respondent No.2 did not bid either in response to the advertisement issued on 15th March, 2008 or in response to the advertisement issued on 28th April, 2008. He had not submitted any bid by 14th May, 2008. Their bid was allegedly submitted only on the next date i.e. on 15th May, 2008. In the meantime, the petitioner had sent a FAX message along with FAX copies of the drafts amounting to Rs.18.00 lacs, drawn in favour of H.P.F.C and this letter was admittedly received by FAX in the office of H.P.F.C. on 17th May, 2009 at 2.30 p.m. The petitioner had also stated that he shall produce the original drafts before H.P.F.C. on 19th May, 2008. 7. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner had made such an offer, the H.P.F.C. should have negotiated with him and given him some reasonable time to pay the entire dues. It is argued that the H.P.F.C. has acted in a highly unfair and unreasonable manner and legal mala fides are writ large. 8. 7. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner had made such an offer, the H.P.F.C. should have negotiated with him and given him some reasonable time to pay the entire dues. It is argued that the H.P.F.C. has acted in a highly unfair and unreasonable manner and legal mala fides are writ large. 8. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation has urged that the H.P.F.C. has taken the best commercial decision on the basis of documents on record. It is argued that the petitioner despite maximum accommodation being given to him did not bring any buyer nor offered to pay any substantial amount to settle the loan prior to dealing with respondent No.2. It has also been urged that the offers made by Shri Naveen Bahri and Shri Ram Kumar were less than the offer made by respondent No.2, therefore, keeping in view the interest of the Corporation, the offer made by respondent No.2 was accepted. 9. Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 urges that the petitioner cannot be permitted to rake up this plea at this belated stage. According to him, one of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement dated 28th April, 2008 was that the H.P.F.C. had a right to accept any bid received after the date fixed also. It is also urged that this Court should not sit in appeal over the decision of the H.P.F.C. The decision has been taken in commercial interest and this Court cannot substitute its judgment for the said decision. Shri Neeraj K. Sharma further submitted that no case of mala fides has been made out and the Corporation has acted in a fair and reasonable manner and therefore, the decision of the Corporation should not be interfered with. He also urges that the petitioner cannot be permitted to bring a better buyer during the pendency of the writ petition. According to him, this cannot be done because due to the passage of time, the value of the property has increased. 10. We have carefully perused the entire record of the case as well as the files produced by the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation before us. 11. This court has no concern with what happened prior to 14th May, 2008. According to him, this cannot be done because due to the passage of time, the value of the property has increased. 10. We have carefully perused the entire record of the case as well as the files produced by the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation before us. 11. This court has no concern with what happened prior to 14th May, 2008. Even as per the case set up by the Corporation on four occasions no bids were received. In case no bids were received, it is obvious that the property had to be put to auction or put up for sale again. On the fifth occasion, i.e. pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 15th March, 2008, only one bidder made an offer. This offer was for Rs.46.00 lacs. Thereafter the Corporation decided, and in our opinion rightly so, to issue fresh notice asking any person to better the highest bid received. The course adopted by the Corporation was transparent and a copy of this notice was also sent to the petitioner informing him that he could also make a better offer or bring a better buyer. As noted above, only two persons turned up pursuant to this notice and respondent No.2 was not in the picture at that stage. The record reveals that after negotiations were held, Shri Naveen Bahri made the highest offer of Rs. 60.00 lacs. On the next date, respondent No.2 appeared out of thin air and made an offer of Rs.65.00 lacs. Reliance has been placed on the terms and conditions of the sale (Annexure R-10), which reads as follows:- “15. The Corporation shall have the right to entertain any bidder/ offerer for negotiations even if offer/ bid accompanied with required earnest money is received after the stipulated date.” 12. It is pertinent to note that neither in the advertisement notice dated 15th March, 2008 nor in the advertisement notice dated 28th April, 2008, there is any reference to these terms and conditions. The only note, which makes reference is Note No.1 of the advertisement which provides that the offer should be made on the application form prescribed by the Corporation which also contains the detailed terms and conditions of the sale. It is obvious that only a person who obtains the prescribed application form would be aware of the conditions contained therein. The only note, which makes reference is Note No.1 of the advertisement which provides that the offer should be made on the application form prescribed by the Corporation which also contains the detailed terms and conditions of the sale. It is obvious that only a person who obtains the prescribed application form would be aware of the conditions contained therein. The application form in favour of respondent No.2 was issued only on 15th May, 2008. Therefore, prior to this date, he could not have been aware that there was any condition that such an application form could be accepted by the Corporation even after the date fixed. Even otherwise, we are clearly of the opinion that the power of entertaining and negotiating with bidders after the due date can only be exercised in exceptional cases e.g. when no bids are received by the due date, or the bidders have formed a cartel or where the bids received by the due date are extremely low. There must be some valid reasons to exercise such powers. However these powers cannot be used to give a back-door entry to some new bidder. Otherwise the results will be catastrophic. A person who is introduced at a later stage would know the bids/ offers made already and can easily better the same. 13. In the present case, the bids were opened and negotiations were held with the bidders on 14th May, 2008. The result of the negotiation was public knowledge by the evening. It was very easy thereafter for any other person including the respondent No.2 to make a higher bid on the next day. This will make the entire process of bidding a farce. 14. The stand of the Corporation as well as respondent No.2 is that the offer of Rs.65.00 lacs was made on 15th May, 2008. This stand is totally belied from the fact that the application form though sold on 15th May, 2008 is filled up on 16th May, 2008.The endorsement on the top of the form shows that it was received in the office of the HPFC on 16th May, 2008. In Col. No.3 of the form, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs has been received in cash along with form. This clause reads as under:- “3. A demand draft/ cash receipt bearing No.____ dated_____ drawn for Rs. In Col. No.3 of the form, it is mentioned that an amount of Rs.10.00 lacs has been received in cash along with form. This clause reads as under:- “3. A demand draft/ cash receipt bearing No.____ dated_____ drawn for Rs. 1000000/- (Rupees Ten Lac only) on account of earnest money equivalent to 10% of the assessed value of the assets is enclosed.” 15. In this form, the receipt number and date have been left blank. It is apparent that till that time, the amount of Rs.10 lakhs had not been deposited and therefore, the receipt number had not been entered in the form. Thus, both respondents are making false statements before this Court. 16. The amount of earnest money of Rs. 10.00 lacs was deposited in cash. It purports to have been deposited on 15th May, 2008. We fail to understand how this amount of Rs.10.00 lacs could have been deposited on 15th May, 2008, when the form was filled in, signed and received by the HPFC on 16th May, 2008. On 15th May, 2008 a detailed note was prepared by the Junior Manager (Sales), which makes no reference to any offer having been made by respondent No.2. This file was then submitted to Assistant General Manager as well as Deputy General Manager on the same date and then to the Managing Director of the Corporation. Then on 16th May, 2008, the file is withdrawn to process the fresh offer of Rs.65.00 lacs. It is more than obvious that the application was submitted and the cash deposited only on 16th May, 2008. 17. The way in which this case proceeded thereafter in the Corporation makes depressing reading with regard to the manner in which Senior Officers deal with public funds and property. On 16th May, 2008 itself the Junior Manager (Sales) prepared another note in which he took note of the fresh offer of Rs. 65.00 lacs made by respondent No.2 The Junior Manager expressed the view that since this was a fresh offer, the matter should be negotiated with the two original bidders also. This was a very just and reasonable proposal, because if the rights of other parties who had already made concrete bids were to be affected, they should also be given an opportunity to raise their bids. This was a very just and reasonable proposal, because if the rights of other parties who had already made concrete bids were to be affected, they should also be given an opportunity to raise their bids. The offer made by respondent No.2 at the back of Shri Naveen Bahri and Shri Ram Kumar could not have been accepted without giving them a reasonable opportunity to better the offer made by respondent No.2. The note of the Junior Manager (Sales) was approved by the Assistant General Manager. According to him, fresh round of negotiation should be held with the highest two bidders so that they would be given a chance to further increase their offers. 18. We must keep in mind the fact that all these offers were well below the price, which was got assessed by the Corporation itself and therefore, the Corporation was well aware that the market price of the property was higher than the bids it had received. 19. The file thereafter was put up to the Managing Director of the Corporation, who appended the following note:- “May kindly like to examine last offer in view of the sale Policy of the Corporation. Should we settle the deal here itself or still go in for negotiation even now.” 20. This note is dated 17th May, 2008. The note was put up for consideration of the General Manager, who opined that as per the Sale Policy, the case falls within the parameters of the policy and the power lies with the Managing Director to decide the same. It would be pertinent to mention that no such sale policy has been filed by the HPFC nor produced before us till date. It was also mentioned that the offer made by respondent No.2 was the highest and respondent No.2 had made an offer on cash down payment basis and it could be accepted as per the norms. Thereafter the Managing Director made a note that the last offer of Rs.65.00 lacs be accepted because of it being a cash down offer and also since it was the highest offer and the fact that despite best efforts, the property could not be sold for the last two years. The file was then marked to the Deputy General Manager (LNT) and signed by him. The file was then marked to the Deputy General Manager (LNT) and signed by him. It appears that this file was actually signed on 19th May, 2008, but thereafter overwriting was made so as to show that this file was signed on 17th May, 2008, but to the naked eye, it is apparent that this file was actually signed on 19th May, 2008. This fact becomes relevant and material because in the meantime on 17th May, 2008, the petitioner had sent a FAX letter to the Corporation. He also sent FAX copies of three drafts drawn in favour of the HPFC, i.e. one bank draft for Rs.10.00 lacs drawn on the Punjab National Bank, the second for a sum of Rs.7.00 lacs drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. and the third one for a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs drawn on AXIS Bank. Thus by the evening of 17th May, 2008, the Corporation was aware that the petitioner-loanee had got prepared drafts of Rs.18.00 lacs, which were payable to it. The petitioner had also clearly stated in his letter dated 17th May, 2008 addressed to the Corporation that he would submit the original drafts on 19th May, 2008. 21. On 19th May, 2008, fresh noting was prepared by the Junior Manager (Sales), in which he wrote that the loanee had also offered a sum of Rs.18.00 lacs and he put up the matter before the higher authorities to consider whether the Corporation should go ahead with the sale process with the respondent No.2 or the petitioner be given another chance to pay the balance amount. It appears that the matter was discussed by some Officers of the Corporation and the default of the petitioner was got worked out and assessed at Rs.66,52,394/-. Thereafter, a note was put up by the Chief General Manager that in view of the fact that the loanee has deposited Rs.18.00 lacs, therefore, one option before the Corporation was to call for the loanee and explore the possibility of clearance of entire outstanding liabilities of Rs.48,52,394/- along with future interest especially in view of the fact that he had paid an amount of Rs.18.00 lacs. He also made an alternative proposal that the Corporation may decide to go ahead with the sale and issue acceptance letter. This noting is dated 21st May, 2008. He also made an alternative proposal that the Corporation may decide to go ahead with the sale and issue acceptance letter. This noting is dated 21st May, 2008. It is thus obvious that till 21st May, 2008, no acceptance letter had been issued to respondent No.2 and the matter was still under consideration of the Corporation. 22. After going through the entire record, we are of the considered view that though two options were put forth by the CGM of the Corporation, the first option was the more fair and reasonable option, since it gave a chance to the loanee to pay the balance amount. The least the Corporation should have done was to have called the loanee and asked him whether he is willing to pay the entire outstanding dues within next 15 days or so. It would have been most reasonable in case the Corporation had given the petitioner a reasonable time to pay the balance amount. In case the petitioner had not paid this amount during this period the Corporation may have been justified in selling the Unit to respondent No.2. 23. However, we find that the Managing Director took a decision which in our opinion is totally unreasonable and unfair. The note of the Managing Director reads as follows: “GHORA GHAAS SE DOSTI KAREGA TO KHAYEGA KYA. For us in HPFC recovering our dues from defaulters is going to be key to our own survival as a Corporation. N-318 is approved as proposed.” 24. One cannot have any quarrel with the noting of the Managing Director that the best interest of the H.P.F.C. was to recover the amount due from the defaulters. However, here we are concerned with a case where the defaulting Unit had already deposited Rs.18.00 lacs. On the other hand along with the offer of respondent No.2, which as we have already observed above, was managed through the back-door, only Rs.10.00 lacs was deposited. On 21st May, 2008, the proposal was approved and on the same date, the acceptance letter was issued. Here the situation becomes murkier. As noted above, till this date no final decision had been taken by the Corporation on the offer of respondent No.2. It was still to be decided whether other bidders were to be called or whether the petitioner-loanee was to be given another opportunity to pay the loan amount. 25. Here the situation becomes murkier. As noted above, till this date no final decision had been taken by the Corporation on the offer of respondent No.2. It was still to be decided whether other bidders were to be called or whether the petitioner-loanee was to be given another opportunity to pay the loan amount. 25. All these matters were still under consideration and the decision was taken by the Managing Director on 21st May, 2008 only. The acceptance letter was prepared on the same date and was addressed to both S/Sh. K.D. Sharma and R.P. Singh at their addresses at Una. However, Shri R.P. Singh was obviously present in the Corporation premises since he received the letter by hand on 21st May, 2008 itself. Not only did he receive the letter, but he also deposited Rs.55.00 lacs with the Corporation on the same date. Rs.55.00 lacs is a huge sum of money which is not carried like loose change in the pocket. Interestingly, the letter dated 21st May, 2008 permits these persons to deposit the balance amount of Rs.55.00 lacs within one month, but this amount was deposited in cash on the same date. It is apparent that Sh. R.P. Singh was aware that the order is going to be passed in his favour otherwise he would not have carried such a huge amount in cash. On the same date, i.e. on 21st May, 2008, Shri R.P. Singh also wrote a letter to the Managing Director that he has deposited the balance amount and therefore, the possession of the Unit be handed over to him. Again on 21st May, 2008 itself a letter was addressed to the Assistant General Manager, HPFC branch office at Dharamshala by the AGM (LNT) of the Corporation directing him to hand over the possession of the sold assets to Shri K.D. Sharma and Shri R.P. Singh. A copy of this letter was also handed over to Shri R.P. Singh. Thereafter on 23rd May, 2008, a FAX in this behalf was again sent to the Assistant General Manager, Dharamshala who on 23rd May, 2008 itself came from Dharamshala to Una and delivered the possession of the property in question to respondent No.2. 26. What was the reason, why the H.P.F.C. had to proceed in such a unholy hurry in the present case? This question has not been answered by the Corporation. 26. What was the reason, why the H.P.F.C. had to proceed in such a unholy hurry in the present case? This question has not been answered by the Corporation. However, the reason behind this unholy hurry is apparent because the petitioner was also in the meantime trying to wield his influence to force the Corporation to consider his request. 27. The petitioner had sent letters to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State and also met certain Members of the Legislative Assembly, who in turn had met the Managing Director on 24.5.2008 at 1.00 P.M. as is apparent from the perusal of the note on the said letter made by the Managing Director. It is apparent that with an intention to make the efforts of the petitioner redundant, the Corporation acted in a hot-haste manner. 28. For a Unit, which had not been sold for the last two years and for which fresh negotiations were held on 14th May, 2008, what was the reason for permitting respondent No.2 to enter from the back-door on 16th May, 2008 and then finalize the deal within 5 days without giving any opportunity either to the petitioner or to the original bidders and thereafter the possession was handed over within 2 days. We do not see such urgency in other matters of the H.P.F.C. including the Court cases of the H.P.F.C. where normally long adjournments are asked for. 29. The entire facts narrated by us in detail above clearly show that somebody in the Corporation was hand in glove with respondent No.2. He was intimated about the offer made on 14th May, 2008, which led the respondent No.2 to make a back-door entry and offer a higher amount on 16th May, 2008. Despite the petitioner depositing Rs.18.00 lacs, the Corporation did not deem it fit to even call him for discussions or negotiations. If the Corporation could give one month’s time to respondent No.2 to deposit the balance amount, reasonableness and fair play required that similar time should have been given to the petitioner to pay the defaulting amount. 30. We cannot ignore the fact that it is the petitioner who set-up the Unit. He may be a chronic defaulter, but it is through his efforts that the Unit was set-up. The total outstanding amount of the Unit was Rs.66,52,394/- as worked out by the Corporation and the petitioner deposited Rs.18.00 lacs. 30. We cannot ignore the fact that it is the petitioner who set-up the Unit. He may be a chronic defaulter, but it is through his efforts that the Unit was set-up. The total outstanding amount of the Unit was Rs.66,52,394/- as worked out by the Corporation and the petitioner deposited Rs.18.00 lacs. On 24th May, 2008, the petitioner deposited another amount of Rs.6.00 lacs and thus he deposited Rs.24.00 lacs in total. The petitioner also deposited another sum of Rs.21.00 lacs by way of drafts somewhere around 19.6.2008. This was not a small amount. The best course for the Corporation was to have given the petitioner some time to liquidate his liability before finalizing the deal with respondent No.2. 31. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has in fact obtained an offer of Rs.1,30.00 crores from Sh. Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal, who have filed affidavits in this regard before us. They have also submitted a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs in the Registry to show their bona fides. On the last date, we had passed a detailed order directing both Sh. Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal to be present in person. We had also permitted the respondent No.2 to appear before us and make a higher offer. 32. Shri Neeraj K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that his clients are not making any higher offer, but object to the offer of Sh. Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal being accepted, as respondent No.2 made his offer on 16th May, 2008 and Shri Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal have made their offer vide affidavit dated 26th June, 2009 i.e. one year two months thereafter. It is also contended that the price of the property has risen during this period. We cannot accept this contention. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that during this period of economic recession, the property prices have fallen all over the country including the State of Himachal Pradesh. The offer of Rs.1.30 crores made by S/Shri Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal is double the amount offered by the petitioner. The difference is so large that it leaves no doubt in our minds that the offer made by respondent No.2 is much below the market value of the property. The offer of Rs.1.30 crores made by S/Shri Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal is double the amount offered by the petitioner. The difference is so large that it leaves no doubt in our minds that the offer made by respondent No.2 is much below the market value of the property. It may be true that normally this Court would not entertain such offers made during the course of the litigation, but here we are not dealing with a case of marginal increase, but an increase from Rs. 65.00 lacs to Rs.1.30 crores. The result would be that after settling the dues of the H.P.F.C., about Rs.60.00 lacs would be left for the petitioner. If this offer is not accepted and the petition is rejected, the petitioner would be reduced to a state of penury. 33. In case the writ petition is rejected, the future of the petitioner and his family will be adversely affected. In the present case, the petitioner had deposited Rs.18.00 lacs before the offer of respondent No.2 was accepted, Rs.6.00 lacs within three days thereafter and Rs.21.00 lacs within one month thereafter. Thus, during a period of one month, the petitioner had deposited Rs.45.00 lacs as against the total outstanding of Rs.65.00 lacs. Whether we considered the human angle or the legal angle, it is apparent that the petitioner should not have been denied justice and should have been given a reasonable opportunity of paying the amount. 34. Shri Neeraj K. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has strenuously urged that this court should not interfere in the decision of the Corporation in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in U.P. Financial Corporation and Others vs. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd. [(1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 754], Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. Micro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P) Ltd. And Others [(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 65] and Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Cavalet India Ltd. And others [(2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 456]. 35. We need not to refer all these judgments in detail since after consideration of the entire law,the apex Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. has summarize the legal principles as follows:- “19. Cavalet India Ltd. And others [(2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 456]. 35. We need not to refer all these judgments in detail since after consideration of the entire law,the apex Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. has summarize the legal principles as follows:- “19. From the aforesaid, the legal principles that emerge are:- (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. (ii) In a 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 businesslike 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 every body 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. (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 realize 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 call 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.” 36. The judgment relied upon by the respondent No.2 itself clearly lays down that the writ court can interfere where the Corporation acts unfairly or unreasonably. We have no doubt in our mind that the Corporation acted unfairly and unreasonably firstly, by not giving an opportunity to the earlier two bidders to better their offers and secondly by not holding any negotiation with the petitioner after he had deposited a huge amount of Rs.18.00 lacs before the offer of respondent No.2 had been accepted. 38. We are also of the view that though mala fides against a particular person may not have been proved, it is apparent, as held by us above, that some highly placed official of the Corporation was hand in glove with respondent No.2. This is apparent because respondent No.2 was allowed to negotiate after 14th May, 2008. The dates have been fudged by the Corporation and it is made to appear that the respondent No.2 made the offer on 15th May, 2008, whereas it is apparent that only the application form was sold on 15th May, 2008, but the same was received in the office of the Corporation only on 16th May, 2008. The dates have been fudged by the Corporation and it is made to appear that the respondent No.2 made the offer on 15th May, 2008, whereas it is apparent that only the application form was sold on 15th May, 2008, but the same was received in the office of the Corporation only on 16th May, 2008. It is more than apparent that the respondent No.2 was aware of the offers made by the earlier bidders. The respondent No.2 was aware of what was happening inside the Corporation since he was ready with Rs.55.00 lacs in cash even before his offer had been accepted. It is apparent that somebody in the Corporation had assured him that his offer would be accepted and therefore despite the fact the respondent No2. was given time of 30 days to deposit the amount, this huge sum of money was deposited, that too in cash, on 21st May, 2008 itself. It is indeed surprising that the respondent No.2 could manage to deposit Rs.65.00 lacs in cash within a period of five days. No source of these funds has been disclosed till date. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that legal mala fides are writ large on the canvas of this case. 39. The apex Court has also held that in the matter of sale of public property the dominant consideration is to secure the best price of the property. The offer of the respondent No.2 was only Rs.65.00 lacs, whereas M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal have offered Rs.1.30 crores. Thus, it is apparent that the decision of the Corporation is totally unreasonable, arbitrary and mala fide. 40. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition and quash the decision of the Corporation taken on 21st May, 2008 to sell the property to respondent No.2. We further issue a direction directing the respondent No.2 to return the possession of the property to the H.P.F.C. 41. According to the calculations of the H.P.F.C. itself, the total amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation was Rs.73,15,490/-. This amount is not admitted to be correct by the petitioner. We cannot decide this matter in these proceedings. An amount of Rs.10.00 lacs has been deposited by M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal in this court. According to the calculations of the H.P.F.C. itself, the total amount payable by the petitioner to the Corporation was Rs.73,15,490/-. This amount is not admitted to be correct by the petitioner. We cannot decide this matter in these proceedings. An amount of Rs.10.00 lacs has been deposited by M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal in this court. This amount along with the interest accrued there upon shall be remitted to the H.P.F.C. by depositing the same in its bank account, the details whereof will be furnished by H.P.F.C. to the Registry within one week from today. It is made clear that the Corporation shall not claim any interest from the petitioner on the amount of Rs.73,15,490/-. 42. M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1.20 crores in the Registry of this Court on or before 21st August, 2009. The counsel for the petitioner shall give notice of deposit of this amount to the learned counsel for the Corporation and the respondent No.2. On such amount being deposited, the sale shall stand confirmed in favour of M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal. The respondent No.2 shall hand over the possession of the Unit to the HPFC on or before 28th August, 2009. The HPFC shall refund a sum of Rs.65.00 lacs to the respondent No.2 on or before 7th September, 2009. The HPFC on or before 28th August, 2009 shall calculate the amount due and payable from the petitioner as on 21st May, 2008 after adjusting the amounts received from the petitioner. Out of the amount lying with the Registry, such amount shall be released to the Corporation after obtaining orders from the Court. The balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner and thereafter the HPFC shall hand over the possession of the property to M/s Puran Chand Juneja and Shyam Lal on or before 7th September, 2009 and execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner on or before 31st October, 2009. 43. We also make it clear that if any of the parties feels that it has to recover any amount from any of the other parties by way of damages, interest, excess payment etc, it can initiate proceedings for recovery of the same in accordance with law. 44. 43. We also make it clear that if any of the parties feels that it has to recover any amount from any of the other parties by way of damages, interest, excess payment etc, it can initiate proceedings for recovery of the same in accordance with law. 44. We also award costs of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the petitioner to be paid by the H.P.F.C. and respondent No.2 in equal shares. We are imposing exemplary costs on them in view of the false stand taken by the respondents. The Corporation shall be at liberty to recover the amount of cost from the erring official(s). 45. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as the Director Vigilance, who shall look into the matter and decide whether the matter needs to be investigated on the criminal side or not. 46. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The stay order is vacated. 47. C.M.P. No.4383 of 2009. Disposed of in view of the orders passed on July 2, 2009.