JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. — Initially a writ application had been filed for a direction to opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 to refund or adjust against petitioner’s loan account, the amount paid by the petitioner towards outstanding dues of the IDCO recoverable from the previous owner. The writ application was amended during its pendency and by way of amendment, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.4.2009 in which the above prayer of the petitioner was turned down. 2.The case of the petitioner is that M/s. United Engineers had availed loan from Orissa State Financial Corporation for running an Industrial Unit. The land and shed for establishing the Industrial Unit had been provided by IDCO. The said Industrial Unit having failed to pay the dues of the OSFC, action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 was taken and possession of the Industrial Unit along with all movable and immovable properties were taken over by the OSFC. Having come to know about availability of the said Industrial Unit for sale, the petitioner approached the OSFC to take the Industrial Unit on lease. The proposal of the petitioner was accepted and an agreement to sale the immovable assets of M/s. United Engineers in favour of the petitioner was made on 31.3.2000. Possession was delivered to the petitioner on 7.4.2000. After taking over possession of the Industrial Unit, the petitioner took immediate step for commercial production but it got affected due to non-transfer of the land and shed in favour of the petitioner by IDCO. When the petitioner requested for change of ownership in relation to land and shed, in turn OSFC requested IDCO for transferring the ownership in favour of the petitioner with mortgageable right continuing in favour of OSFC. In response to the said letter, IDCO intimated on 4.8.2000 to OSFC that there was an outstanding due of Rs.3,33,606/- against the previous owner, i.e., M/s. United Engineers and unless that amount is paid, it may not be possible to transfer the ownership in favour of the petitioner. Since repeated approaches in this regard to OSFC and IDCO did not bring any result, the petitioner out of compulsion under advise of OSFC deposited a sum of Rs.2,84,055.49 towards the hire purchase dues of IDCO recoverable from the previous owner in March, 2002. Since repeated approaches in this regard to OSFC and IDCO did not bring any result, the petitioner out of compulsion under advise of OSFC deposited a sum of Rs.2,84,055.49 towards the hire purchase dues of IDCO recoverable from the previous owner in March, 2002. After deposit of the said amount, IDCO executed an agreement transferring ownership of the land and shed in favour of the petitioner. This writ application has been filed solely on the ground that the dues of IDCO from M/s.United Engineers cannot be recovered from the petitioner and the said amount is to be either waived or paid by OSFC and the petitioner is not at all liable to pay the said amount. Accordingly a prayer has been made in the writ application to either refund the amount paid by the petitioner or to adjust the said amount against the loan account of the petitioner. During pendency of the writ application, by order dated 4.3.2009, this Court directed the State Financial Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner in this regard sympathetically. In pursuance of the said order, the representation of the petitioner having been rejected by the Managing Director of OSFC in Annexure-8, the said communication has also been challenged in this writ application by way of amendment. 3.A counter affidavit has been filed by OSFC. It is stated in the counter affidavit that after OSFC took over possession of the movable and immovable properties of M/s. United Engineers in exercise of authority under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, an advertisement was issued for sale the said property on “as is where is basis” through the Disposal-cum-Advisory Committee. Amongst other conditions, one of the condition at Sl. No. 6 in the advertisement was that the Corporation shall not be liable for any statutory or other dues accrued on the unit prior to or after the sale. According to the OSFC, in view of this clause, it is not liable to pay the dues of IDCO recoverable from M/s. United Engineers and therefore, the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 4.Shri Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the agreement executed between OSFC and the petitioner. According to the OSFC, in view of this clause, it is not liable to pay the dues of IDCO recoverable from M/s. United Engineers and therefore, the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 4.Shri Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the agreement executed between OSFC and the petitioner. Clause-1 of the Agreement on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner prescribes that the assets of movables and immovables as detailed in the schedule are delivered and possession given by the Vendor Corporation to the Vendee, on the movable assets being sold out under a sale memo executed separately and the immovable assets will be sold/caused to be leased out by IDCO within a reasonable period by the Vendor. Relying on this clause, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was the duty of the Corporation to see that the land is leased out by IDCO in favour of the petitioner and for that if any dues of IDCO is required to be paid, the same should have been paid by the OSFC. The learned counsel further contended that in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Corporation for sale of the said Unit in October, 1998, no buyer came forward to purchase the same. Almost one year thereafter the petitioner approached the Corporation to sale the Unit in its favour and the decision for sale in favour of the petitioner was taken by way of negotiation. The sale in favour of the petitioner not being in pursuance of the advertisement under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by OSFC, neither of the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the said advertisement. Therefore, the stand taken by the Corporation that the condition mentioned in Sl. No. 6 of the advertisement that the Corporation shall not be liable for any statutory or other dues accrued on the Units prior to sale or after the sale has no basis. Relying on the counter affidavit, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner voluntarily approached the OSFC to purchase the Unit and therefore, none of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement in Annexure-A has any application to the sale made in favour of the petitioner. Relying on the counter affidavit, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner voluntarily approached the OSFC to purchase the Unit and therefore, none of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement in Annexure-A has any application to the sale made in favour of the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned counsel that once the sale was made in favour of the petitioner on negotiation, the standard condition of sale must apply to the case of the petitioner and according to Clause 6 of the standard condition of sale, the sold assets shall be governed under the prevalent IPR applicable at the time of sale. Learned counsel also contended that at the relevant time IPR 1996 was in force and in terms of the IPR, the petitioner is not liable to pay the dues of IDCO. 5.Shri Somnath Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for OSFC submitted that the sale in favour of the petitioner being in pursuance of the advertisement in Annexure-A, the Corporation is not liable to pay the dues. Shri Mishra also referred to Clause 9 of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and IDCO and submitted that in terms of the said clause, the petitioner having agreed to pay all existing and future rates and taxes, charges, claims of the outgoing Unit, now it cannot claim either refund or adjustment of the amount paid by him for execution of the lease by IDCO in its favour in respect of the land and shed. 6.Shri Rath, the learned counsel appearing for IDCO submitted that admittedly there was an outstanding due against the previous owner M/s. United Engineers and without clearance of the said dues, no fresh lease could be executed in favour of the petitioner. The dispute as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay this amount or not is a matter between the petitioner and OSFC and IDCO has no say. 7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents annexed to the petition as well as counter affidavit, we feel that the first question that requires determination is as to whether the petitioner purchased the Industrial Unit in pursuance of the advertisement in Annexure-A or it was purchased by negotiation. 7.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents annexed to the petition as well as counter affidavit, we feel that the first question that requires determination is as to whether the petitioner purchased the Industrial Unit in pursuance of the advertisement in Annexure-A or it was purchased by negotiation. Admittedly the sale notice in Annexure-A had been published in October, 1998 and there was no response from anyone so far as M/s. United Engineers is concerned. One year thereafter the petitioner approached the Corporation being interested to purchase the said Unit and in paragraph-6 of the counter of OSFC, it is specifically admitted that on negotiation, sale of the assets in favour of the petitioner was confirmed and accordingly sale letter was issued on 8.9.1999 for a total consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- on certain terms and conditions. Though the sale letter indicates that it was sold on “as is where is basis”, it can safely be held that the petitioner had not purchased the said Industrial Unit from OSFC in pursuance of the advertisement in Annexure-A. Therefore, none of the conditions mentioned in Annexure-A is applicable to the sale made by OSFC in favour of the petitioner. Apart from the above, in Annexure-B dated 8.9.1999, a letter written by the Manager (Disposal) to the representative of the petitioner, it is again admitted by OSFC that on negotiation the sale of assets had been effected in favour of the petitioner and it is also indicated in the said letter in paragraph 3.09 that the conditions mentioned at Annexure-I enclosed to the letter shall be applicable to the sale. Annexure-I to the said letter prescribes the standard conditions of sale. Clause 6 thereof clearly provides that the sold assets shall be governed under the prevalent IPR applicable at the time of sale. In the year 1999, when the sale was effected in favour of the petitioner, the IPR 1996 was in operation. One of the relaxations granted under the said IPR relates to different types of dues. It is the case of the petitioner that the due of IDCO from the previous owner cannot be recovered from the petitioner in view of such relief provided in IPR 1996. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. It is the case of the petitioner that the due of IDCO from the previous owner cannot be recovered from the petitioner in view of such relief provided in IPR 1996. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. In Annexure-B, the Corporation having admitted that the sale in favour of the petitioner was by way of negotiation and that standard conditions of sale shall be applicable to the case of the petitioner, all benefits available under IPR 1996 have to be extended to the petitioner. 8.We, therefore, dispose of this writ application directing the OSFC to extend all benefits under IPR 1996 specifically so far as it relates to the dues of IDCO from the previous owner, i.e., M/s. United Engineers to the petitioner and either refund the amount paid by the petitioner which the previous owner had defaulted to pay to IDCO or adjust the said amount with interest @ 6% per annum against the loan account of the petitioner. C.R. DASH, J.I agree. Application disposed of.