JUDGMENT AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Petitioner-firm has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the auction of seven shops conducted by the Haryana Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as respondent-Corporation) and with a further direction to the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner to bring a better buyer. Prayer has also been made for quashing of the demand raised by the respondents on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have failed to adjust the amount of subsidy of Rs. 3,82,000/- along with interest at the rate on which the loan was advanced by the respondent-Corporation in view of the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. Briefly, the facts are that petitioner M/s. Pal Chemical, a partnership firm, obtained a term loan of Rs. 19,65,000/- and working capital loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the respondent-Corporation in the year 1994. Petitioner-firm suffered losses, resulting in non-adherence to the repayment schedule resulting in defaulting in the payment of the loan. Petitioner had mortgaged seven shops situated in Charan Singh Market, Hansi, District Hisar with the respondent-Corporation. On default of the petitioner-firm, proceedings were initiated against it under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 1951 Act). Petitioner asserts that it was entitled to the subsidy on the loan amount as per the policy of the Industries Department, Haryana, which became due on 08.02.1995 and was sanctioned an amount of Rs. 3,82,000/- against the loan and a sum of Rs. 36,000/- against the generating set in its favour on 27.09.1995. This amount was to be released by the respondents forthwith which could be utilised by the petitioner-firm within a period of nine months. Respondent-Corporation did not release the said amount, because of which the petitioner-firm filed a civil suit for permanent injunction directing the respondents to adjust the amount along with interest @ 22% per annum w.e.f. 27.09.1995. The suit was dismissed on 15.12.2001 by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, against which petitioner preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2003 holding therein that the petitioner is entitled to the adjustment of the subsidy of Rs. 3,82,000/- plus interest at the rate on which the loan was advanced by the respondent-Corporation. 3,82,000/- plus interest at the rate on which the loan was advanced by the respondent-Corporation. It was further held therein that after adjustment of the above amount, respondent-Corporation would be entitled to recover the balance amount, if any. This amount has not yet been readjusted as per the decree passed in favour of the petitioner, but instead the respondent-Corporation without intimating the petitioner went ahead with the auction of the seven shops of the petitioner-firm, which were mortgaged with it. The auction was confirmed in favour of respondent No. 3 and this fact came to knowledge of the petitioner during the course of some other litigation, i.e. in the execution proceedings which were initiated by it against the tenants in the shops of which eviction orders have been passed by the competent Court and that too when an application was preferred by respondent No. 3 for becoming a party to the execution proceedings on the ground that he had purchased the shops in an open auction and had become the owner/landlord. Petitioner alleges that it was not intimated about the said auction of the shops and, therefore, the auction is not sustainable. It has further been stated that the petitioner was willing to offer a bid for higher amount than for which the shops were auctioned, but the respondent-authorities paid no heed inspite of its repeated requests and meetings. On 08.10.2007, petitioner-firm received a notice from the respondent-Corporation regarding determination of the sum due from it under Section 32 (G) of the 1951 Act. In the said notice, it was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 22,39,943/- along with interest @ 22% per annum from 01.12.2006 was outstanding in term loan account and a sum of Rs. 60,44,815/- along with interest @ 20.5% per annum from 01.04.2007 was also due towards working capital term loan account. This amount is sought to have been recovered as arrears of land revenue under the 1951 Act. It is alleged that the entire action of the respondent-Corporation in computing and realising the amount of loan is unjustified and unsustainable as the respondent-Corporation has failed to adjust the subsidy amount as per the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner-firm. It is alleged that the entire action of the respondent-Corporation in computing and realising the amount of loan is unjustified and unsustainable as the respondent-Corporation has failed to adjust the subsidy amount as per the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner-firm. It has been stated that the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity for participating in the bid or for bringing a better buyer when the shops were put to auction by the respondent-Corporation. As the auction has been held at the back of the petitioner, the action of the respondent-Corporation cannot be sustained. Counsel for the petitioner-firm, on the basis of the pleadings, has urged that the petitioner-firm is entitled to the prayer as made in the writ petition. His further contention is that the auction in favour of respondent No. 3 deserves to be set-aside as the same has been conducted at the back of the petitioner without any intimation to it. He further states that the respondents have failed to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs. 3,82,000/- along with interest as was directed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide its judgment and decree dated 22.05.2003. On this basis, it has been asserted that the notice dated 08.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) served on the petitioner is not sustainable and the same deserves to be set-aside. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this Court without verifying the true facts with regard to the adjustment of the subsidy amount along with interest. The respondent-Corporation has already adjusted the subsidy amount along with interest in compliance with the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar without even waiting for the petitioner for filing execution proceedings. Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner-firm is pending in this Court. He submits that the auction was conducted in accordance with law by issuance of a public notice and the petitioner was intimated about it. A fresh recovery notice dated 06.02.2013 has been issued to the petitioner, copy whereof has been produced in Court today as per the undertaking given before the Court on 15.10.2008 by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation. He submits that auction has already taken place and the possession has also been handed over to the purchaser, i.e. respondent No. 3. A fresh recovery notice dated 06.02.2013 has been issued to the petitioner, copy whereof has been produced in Court today as per the undertaking given before the Court on 15.10.2008 by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation. He submits that auction has already taken place and the possession has also been handed over to the purchaser, i.e. respondent No. 3. Counsel for respondent No. 3 states that the auction amount has been paid and the possession has also been handed over to the said respondent. He contends that the averments made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are not correct with regard to the petitioner being not aware of the auction proceedings. Reference has been made to Paras 9 and 10 of the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to contend that the petitioner was duly intimated by the respondent-Corporation including all the partners and guarantors. It has, on this basis, been asserted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. We have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. As is apparent from the pleadings and the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties, petitioner is a defaulter and the only grouse primarily projected by it is that the subsidy amount of Rs. 3,82,000/- along with interest as decreed in its favour has not been adjusted by the respondent-Corporation, which fact has been found to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, the same has been adjusted by the respondent-Corporation as is apparent from the pleadings. That apart, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and for that reason, the petitioner is not entitled to the equitable claim as made in the present writ petition. It has been asserted that the petitioner was not intimated by the respondent-Corporation with regard to the auction of the shops, whereas the reply as filed by the respondent-Corporation, gives details of the registered letters, which were sent to the petitioner-firm, partners and guarantors about the ensuing auction. The factum of the auction of the shops was, thus, in the notice of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to bring a better buyer, who can pay more than what has been paid by the auction purchaser, at this belated stage, cannot be accepted. The factum of the auction of the shops was, thus, in the notice of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to bring a better buyer, who can pay more than what has been paid by the auction purchaser, at this belated stage, cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner is still in arrears of a huge amount as is clear from the recovery certificate dated 06.02.2013, copy whereof has been produced in Court today by the counsel for the respondent-Corporation, according to which the recovery of Rs. 1,29,60,366/- in WCTL A/c with future interest @ 20.5% per annum w.e.f. 01.10.2012 along with pendente-lite, future interest and misc. expenses is due. Petitioner, thus, is not entitled to the claim as has been made in the present writ petition. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.