JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, CJ. (Oral):- The petitioner, stated to be a partnership firm, availed of loan facility from the Punjab Financial Corporation (PFC) on 9.11.1998. The loan amount was secured by mortgage of land measuring 11 kanals – 13 marlas on which the house of the petitioner was constructed, located in Sahni Market, Pathankot. 2. There were persistent defaults in the loan and it is case of the petitioner that business never really took off as only part of the loan was advanced. In order to clear liabilities of defaulters, an OTS Scheme came into being in the year 2009 and an option was given to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not avail of that scheme. Not only that a second scheme came into being in February-2013 and again an option was available with the petitioner to apply, but it is the case of the petitioner that funds could not be raised. 3. The petitioner by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to now repay the loan amount as per the OTS Scheme of February-2013, which has since lapsed. In our view, such a direction cannot be passed as the petitioner undisputedly failed to make the payment during the currency of the OTS Scheme which was valid up to 27.3.2013. 4. The mortgaged property has also been put to auction as per Annexure P-12 and, as is apparent from the minutes of the Sub Committee dated 11.10.2013, two bids were received against the assets value of Rs. 81.70 lacs. One of these bids was for Rs.82 lacs while the other was for Rs.83 lacs. It appears that thereafter an inter se bidding was held to get a better price and the final offer has been made by one Shri Rahul Bhandari for Rs.106.50 lacs who has been arrayed in the present petition as respondent No.4. This was found to be satisfactory by the PFC specially as the physical possession was yet to be taken over and the Committee decided to accept the offer without calling upon respondent No.4 to deposit 10% of the amount by giving a period of one month after obtaining vacant possession to deposit the amount. The participatory amount of Rs.50,000/- already stood deposited. 5. The second limb of the submission of the petitioner seeks to assail this methodology of auction. The participatory amount of Rs.50,000/- already stood deposited. 5. The second limb of the submission of the petitioner seeks to assail this methodology of auction. We once again find no fundamental infirmity in the same as the decision has been necessitated on account of possession still being held over by the petitioner. No specific violation of any rule has been pointed out by which such a process could not be adopted and it is only after the Corporation obtains the possession of the property would the purchaser be willing to pay for it and that is what the arrangement is. No case has been made out that the property is being sold at a much lower value or that the petitioner is capable of fetching a higher price for which a buyer is available with the petitioner. All that the petitioner wants is that it should not pay the loan and yet the bank should not proceed against its secured property because it is a residential house. The property having been specifically mortgaged, there is no protection available to the petitioner on account of the property being a residential house. Dismissed.