Judgment :- 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the first and the second respondents to initiate appropriate action in the light of the representation, dated 28.2.2009, made on behalf of the petitioner and consequently, direct the said respondents to set aside the sale deed, dated 18.8.2006, executed in favour of the third respondent. 2. This writ petition had been numbered subject to maintainability and listed before this Court under the caption 'for maintainability', as the Registry had returned the case papers to the counsel for the petitioner, for the following clarification and compliance. "1. It may be stated how this writ petition is maintainable, when the relief had already been sought for in earlier writ petitions, writ appeals and S.L.P. and ordered accordingly. 2. Subject to maintainability, prayer needs revision." 3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a registered Small Scale Industry. During the course of its business, the petitioner had availed a loan of Rs.9,00,000/-, along with a soft loan of Rs.70,000/- from the second respondent. As the petitioner was not in a position to repay the loans, due to the general recession in the market, the second respondent had taken possession of the petitioner's small scale industry, on 19.12.1994. While so, the petitioner had filed a suit, in O.S.No.14229 of 1996, on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, and had obtained an order of interim injunction. 4. It has been further stated that in the month of October, 1997, the petitioner was constrained to close the unit, as it had faced huge losses in its business. Based on the representation made by the petitioner, to the District Level Declaration Committee, District Industries Center, it had been declared as a sick unit, on 18.9.2000. On 23.10.2003, the respondent Corporation had asked the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.32,64,718.30 towards the term loan and a sum of Rs.72,970/-towards the soft loan, within a period of 7 days. Aggrieved by the request made by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.31927 of 2003. This Court had dismissed the writ petition, on 11.11.2003. The petitioner had preferred a writ appeal against the order of dismissal, in W.A.No.556 of 2004, which was also dismissed, on 13.12.2005. Aggrieved by the request made by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.31927 of 2003. This Court had dismissed the writ petition, on 11.11.2003. The petitioner had preferred a writ appeal against the order of dismissal, in W.A.No.556 of 2004, which was also dismissed, on 13.12.2005. Against the said order, dated 13.12.2005, made in the writ appeal, in W.A.No.556 of 2004, the petitioner had preferred a special leave petition (Civil) No.1446 of 2006, before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had asked the petitioner to approach the High Court, while dismissing the special leave petition. While so, the petitioner had received an auction notice, dated 19.2.2006, issued by the second respondent stating that the auction would be held, in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner, on 27.2.2006. 5. It has been further stated that, subsequently, the petitioner had received a letter, dated 1.3.2006, showing the market value of the properties, as fixed by the second respondent. The petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the second respondent would not proceed with the auction, in view of the pendency of the special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the second respondent had brought the properties in question for auction, on 27.2.2006, for a total sale consideration of Rs.37,37,000/-, which is lower than the value fixed by the second respondent. 6. It has been further stated that pursuant to the orders passed by the Supreme Court, dated 10.7.2006, in S.L.P.No.1446 of 2005, granting the petitioner liberty to seek modification of the orders passed by this Court, on 13.12.2005, the petitioner had filed an application for modification, in W.P.M.P.No.1725 of 2006, in the writ appeal, in W.A.No.556 of 2004. The application for modification had been dismissed by this Court, by its order, dated 28.9.2006, as the auction had already been conducted, on 28.9.2006, and the sale had been confirmed, on 10.3.2006, and the sale deed had been executed, on 18.8.2006. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there has been a collusion between the second and the third respondents in the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there has been a collusion between the second and the third respondents in the sale of the properties belonging to the petitioner. Even though the respondent Corporation had valued the market value of the property and the building at Rs.50,15,000/- and the value of the machinery at Rs.2,25,000/-, it had chosen to sell the same at the throwaway price of Rs.37,37,000/-. The market value set out by the respondent Corporation in its letter, dated 1.3.2006, is far below the real market value at the relevant point of time, which was more than 1.50 crores. In such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted several representations to the first and the second respondents, including the detailed representation, dated 28.2.2009, asking for certain details relating to the value fixed, in respect of the properties in question and certain particulars relating to the sale of the said properties, by way of an auction sale. 8. As the petitioner Corporation had failed to respond to the requests made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 had submitted, on instructions, that filing of the present writ petition, by the petitioner, is a clear abuse of the process of law. The petitioner having lost its case at various stages, before this Court, as well as before the Supreme Court, it is not open to him to re-open the matter, by filing the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asking for certain details about the fixing of the value of the property in question and for certain other details relating to the sale of the said properties, by way of public auction. 10. The petitioner is well aware that the properties in question had been sold in the auction sale, held on 28.2.2006, and that the sale deed had been executed on 18.8.2006, in favour of the third respondent. The petitioner has approached this Court with the mala fide intention of re-opening the issue, after a lapse of nearly six years, without showing proper cause to do so. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, in limine, with exemplary costs. 11. The petitioner has approached this Court with the mala fide intention of re-opening the issue, after a lapse of nearly six years, without showing proper cause to do so. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, in limine, with exemplary costs. 11. In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court to re-open the issue relating to the auction sale of the properties in question, held in the year, 2006. 12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier, by filing the writ petitions, in W.P.No.11649 of 2002 and W.P.No.31927 of 2003. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ appeal, in W.A.No.556 of 2004. Having lost its case, the petitioner had moved the supreme Court, in S.L.P.No.19012 of 2006. The petitioner had also filed a Review Petition No.357 of 2007. While so, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, after a long delay, to re-open the issues, which had already been settled, without showing sufficient cause or reason to do so. As such, it is a clear abuse of the process of law. However, while dismissing the present writ petition, this Court is not inclined to impose the exemplary costs on the petitioner, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, taking into consideration the facts and the circumstances of the case. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.