JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was before this Court, claiming the following reliefs:- i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling upon the records pertaining to Ext. P6 and quash the same; ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order to respondent No.3 to register the unit of petitioner as a sick unit and to implement the revival scheme to felicitate the revival of the unit within such time fixed by this Hon'ble Court; iii. to direct respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to operate the unit on remittance of Rs.2 lakhs immediately forthwith and on payment of Rs.25,000/- per month; Essentially, what the petitioner wanted was to quash Ext.P6order by which the General Manager, District Industries Centre refused to register petitioner's unit as a sick unit. The petitioner also sought for a direction to operate the unit on payment of Rs.2 lakhs. 2. The background facts necessary for the adjudication of this case is that the petitioner had availed Rs.10 lakhs in the year 1997 for setting up a splints and veneer's unit which she set up, but later had to be closed down due to the deteriorating market conditions. The petitioner had secured the loan by mortgage of 2 acres 15= cents of her property in addition to 1 acre 30 cents of the property belonging to her husband. Even before filing of the writ petition the petitioners property wherein the Unit also was situated was brought up for a sale on 27.8.2003, by the respondent Bank by a notification dated 29.6.2003. The Bank bid the property in the absence of any other bidders. Though within 30 days the bank could have approached the Joint Register for confirmation of sale, it is submitted that the bank waited till 27.4.2005 for the petitioner to make payments to satisfy the loan amount. On failure of the petitioner to do so, the sale was got confirmed in 2005 and the respondent Bank expended further amounts towards the conveyance of the property in the name of the Bank. 3. It is pertinent that even before the said writ petition was filed the sale of the property mortgaged to the Bank had been confirmed in the name of the Bank. 3. It is pertinent that even before the said writ petition was filed the sale of the property mortgaged to the Bank had been confirmed in the name of the Bank. There was no challenge raised in the instant writ petition, against the sale or the subsequent confirmation made by the Joint Registrar. On admission, there was an interim order sought for by the petitioner and issued by this Court on 30.11.2006. The interim order directed the writ petitioner to make a payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the 2nd respondent and on such payment being made, to allow the writ petitioner to operate the Unit. The amount was remitted and the same was permitted. However, admittedly the defaulted amounts remained unsatisfied despite the petitioner being allowed to operate the Unit nor was the promise of Rs.25,000/- per month honoured. 4. Then, again, when the writ petition came up for hearing on 2.9.2011, it was fairly submitted on behalf of the 2nd respondent bank that after giving credit to the amounts paid by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court as on 30.11.2006, the balance amount remaining defaulted was Rs.39,38,126/-. The Bank also fairly submitted that they were willing to waive an amount of Rs.14,27,948/-, if the petitioner pays the balance amount in-lump with interest from 31.8.2011 on or before 15.09.2011. This was as per a One Time Settlement Scheme of the Bank; despite the fact that the same was not applicable to the petitioner since the land had already been purchased in the name of the Bank and the loan amount remained satisfied. However, as a measure of goodwill, the respondent Bank had come forward to make such a concession so that on satisfaction of the amounts defaulted till then; the petitioner would be enabled to have re-conveyance of her property. 5. This court recording the concession of the Bank directed that an amount of Rs.25,10,178/- along with interest, at applicable rate from 31.8.2008 shall be paid on or before 15.09.2011. This, obviously was not complied with and subsequently, when the matter was posted on 27.9.2011 the very same learned Single Judge vacated the interim order by recording the submission of the bank, which was accepted by the petitioner also, that the interim order dated 2.9.2011 was not complied with. 6. This, obviously was not complied with and subsequently, when the matter was posted on 27.9.2011 the very same learned Single Judge vacated the interim order by recording the submission of the bank, which was accepted by the petitioner also, that the interim order dated 2.9.2011 was not complied with. 6. Even when the matter was posted for hearing, today, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that, in fact the petitioner was ready with the 26 lakhs for payment to the bank as on 19.12.2011 which is evidenced by Ext.P8 Bankers Cheque dated 20.12.2012 drawn in the name of the respondent Bank. An application for extension of payment was also filed in which no orders were passed. In fact when the interim order dated 2.9.2011 was vacated by order dated 27.9.2011, no extension could have been granted on the said application. At present also, what the learned counsel would submit is that he would pay Rs.26 lakhs demanded by the Bank as per the One Time Settlement and any further interest subsequently accrued. But, however, it is to be noticed that the specific offer made by the Bank as per the One Time Settlement Scheme is no more applicable since the scheme itself is not in operation at this distance of time. 7. It is also very pertinent that this Court cannot adjudicate on the question of sale of the property to the bank which had in fact been concluded and confirmed long before the filing of the writ petition. The said proceedings were also not challenged in the instant writ petition. 8. The challenge in the present writ petition is only against Ext.P6, which was an order of the District Industries Centre refusing registration of the petitioners unit as a sick unit. Looking at what factually transpired before and after the filing of the writ petition, such a prayer no longer survives. It is noticed that the sale of the property itself, in the name of the Bank, in satisfaction of the amounts due in the loan account, was concluded long before the present writ petition. The petitioner was granted permission to operate the unit during the pendency of the writ petition and could not successfully revive the unit. The arguments addressed are all with respect to the re-conveyance of the property. The petitioner was granted permission to operate the unit during the pendency of the writ petition and could not successfully revive the unit. The arguments addressed are all with respect to the re-conveyance of the property. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges, based on Ext.R2(c) that if the Court directs, the respondent bank would re-convey the property. Obviously there cannot be any such direction since the sale confirmed in the name of the bank is not the subject matter of the writ petition and the conduct of the petitioner stays the hand of this Court from applying any equitable considerations. The petitioner has absolutely no legal right to claim re-conveyance of property purchased by the respondent Bank long back. It is also to be noticed that what the Bank has resolved by Ext.R2(c) is that the property will be re-conveyed, if the entire amounts defaulted together with interest and expenditure incurred by the bank is satisfied by the petitioner. The writ petition, hence is found to be totally devoid of merit and is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner in seeking reconveyance of the property from the Bank, on the terms specified by the Bank, if the Bank agrees. Such reservation made shall not be construed as a direction to the respondent Bank and that is not the intention of this Court. Parties are left to suffer their costs.