JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner in both the writ petitions are one and the same Private Limited Company. In the first writ petition, the petitioner sought to challenge the order passed by the second respondent, viz., the Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited (for short, ‘TIIC’), Erode Branch, dated 24.11.2009 and to set aside the same in so far as it relates to the time schedule prescribed for initial payment and for the subsequent monthly instalments and consequently to forbear the respondents from taking possession, auctioning and interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the unit under the name and style of M/s.Alps Granites Private Limited. 2. In the second writ petition, the petitioner Company sought to challenge the order, dated 23.8.2010 passed by the third respondent - TIIC and to quash the same and for a consequential direction to forbear the respondents from taking possession, auctioning and interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the unit under the name and style of M/s.Alps Granites Private Limited situated at NO.140/7, Kovai Main Road, Senbagapudur Post, Sathyamangalam Taluk, Erode District. 3. When the first writ petition came up on 02.12.2009, this Court ordered notice to the respondents. Pending the notice, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakhs within two weeks to show the bona fides of the petitioner. But the said deposit was not made. On the contrary, when an application was taken out in M.P.No.2 of 2009 seeking for permission to pay the balance of Rs.2 lakhs out of Rs.5 lakhs within 12 weeks, no orders were passed in that application. 4. On notice from this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents dated 09.3.2010. Even when the said writ petition was pending, the petitioner preferred the second writ petition being W.P.No.21276 of 2010 with the prayer noted above. That writ petition when it came up on 16.09.2010, this Court directed notice to the standing counsel for the TIIC and also with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner once again took out M.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking for extension of time to pay the amount. That writ petition when it came up on 16.09.2010, this Court directed notice to the standing counsel for the TIIC and also with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs.30 lakhs within a period of eight weeks. Subsequently, the petitioner once again took out M.P.No.2 of 2010 seeking for extension of time to pay the amount. When that application came up on 21.12.2002, the petitioner had stated that he has already paid Rs.5 lakhs on 20.12.2010 and for paying the balance Rs.25 lakhs, he sought for further time and, therefore, the time was extended on the petitioner paying the amount of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 31.1.2011 and the interim order was extended. 5. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit dated 04.3.2011. It is stated by the petitioner that on the extension of the interim order, he had paid the amount. It is the case of the petitioners that he has secured a loan of Rs.95.70 lakhs in the year 1993-1996 to be paid within 9 years excluding the holiday period of two years. In view of the fact that there was a prohibitory order in force, the petitioner could not do his mining business. Hence, there was default in the payment. Earlier he filed W.P.No.1890 of 2008, when the respondent TIIC refused One Time Settlement (OTS). However, he brought the property for auction. The said writ petition was admitted on 24.1.2008 and he was directed to pay Rs.9.21 lakhs. It is claimed that the amount having been paid, the possession of the property was handed over. However, for the reasons best known, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 22.3.2008. Subsequently, though there was some informal agreement, the TIIC went back on the agreement for grant of time and hence he filed the first writ petition. 6. It is claimed that an oral direction was given to pay Rs. 5 lakhs but to get extension, he has paid that amount. When a direction was given to hand over the property, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed, it was claimed that when the OTS was extended to the petitioner, he has failed to pay the amount and then there was no scope for the respondent to keep silent over the recovery issue. When a direction was given to hand over the property, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed, it was claimed that when the OTS was extended to the petitioner, he has failed to pay the amount and then there was no scope for the respondent to keep silent over the recovery issue. It is the habit of the petitioners to rush to this Court whenever any execution proceedings were made against the petitioner Company and after getting inteirm orders, once again they go for default. In the counter affidavit, detailed steps taken by the respondent were set out. It was also contended that Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act aimed for speedy recovery of public money so that it can be used in some other public process. 8. A reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Financial Corporation -vs- Gem Cab India Private Limited reported in AIR 1993 SC 299 to contend that interference in recovery proceedings by the State Financial Corporations cannot be done by the courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also stated by the counsel for the respondent TIIC that already possession was taken over and if any further scheme for OTS sought for, it is for him to approach the Corporation. It must be noted that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent TIIC is purely contractual and such contractual terms cannot be interdicted in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. As seen from the records, the petitioner was given the facility of OTS. If he is not satisfied with the terms, he cannot approach the court to give this direction. In the absence of any illegal or unenforceable right, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 10. In the light of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.