ORDER : Ajit Singh, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 26.6.2012 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (in short "Tribunal") whereby it has dismissed petitioner's Misc. Application No.55/2011 arising out of OA No. 38/2001. 2. The petitioner is Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited. In the year 1990, it had provided term loan of Rs. 61 lacs. to Respondent No.2-M/s Sree Sree Mahalakshmi Textiles Mills Pvt. Limited for the purpose of Textile Industry. And, as security, Respondent No.2 mortgaged with the petitioner a plot of land measuring 12 bighas bearing Dag No.460 Patta No.289 situated at village Bengenabari Town, District Nagaon. Respondent No.2 also mortgaged fixed assets, such as, buildings, plant and machinery etc. 3. Since Respondent No.2 failed to repay the loan amount as per agreed terms, the mortgaged property was taken over by the petitioner under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Thereafter, a suit was filed for recovery of the outstanding amount which was transferred to the Tribunal, where it was registered as OA No.38/2001. The Tribunal vide order dated 28.6.2002 allowed the OA directing issuance of certificate in favour of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 71,61,998/- with interest @12.5% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the payment of amount. 4. The Recovery Officer then proceeded for recovery of the amount by way of auction sale of the mortgaged property fixing the reserve price of the mortgaged property at Rs. 12,28,572/-. However, on objection of the petitioner, the reserve price of the mortgaged property was raised to Rs. 55,96,488/- vide order dated 30.4.2010. For some reason or the other, no offer was made in the auction sale process. The Recovery Officer, therefore, reduced the reserve price to Rs. 27,40,328/-. In these circumstances, considering the reserve price fixed for auction sale and the valuation done by the approved Valuer of the petitioner, its Board of Directors, by resolution dated 9.11.2010 decided to keep the mortgaged assets of Respondent No.2 and by another resolution dated 30.6.2011 decided to issue No Dues Certificate to Respondent No.2 after adjustment of the mortgaged property against the entire outstanding liabilities. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal for withdrawal of the Certificate pursuant to the settlement arrived at and closure of recovery proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application before the Tribunal for withdrawal of the Certificate pursuant to the settlement arrived at and closure of recovery proceedings. But the Tribunal has rejected the same by the impugned judgment with a direction to proceed with the recovery proceedings. The Tribunal has held that there was no provision for withdrawal of the Certificate. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed by the present petition. 5. This court by an interim order dated 5.9.2014 had stayed the recovery proceedings before the Tribunal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. If the petitioner, as creditor, is satisfied with the settlement of dues outstanding against Respondent No.2 and is no more interested in pursuing the recovery proceedings, the Tribunal cannot insist the petitioner to pursue for recovery. As already mentioned above, no offer was made in the auction sale and reserve price of the mortgaged property was required to be changed thrice. In the fact situation of the case, if the petitioner decided to settle the matter amicably without violating any law, the Tribunal ought to have returned the certificate as was prayed for. We accordingly quash the impugned judgment and direct the Tribunal to return the certificate to the petitioner without any further delay. 7. The petition is allowed.