ORDER : 1. The first petitioner is a Company of which the second petitioner is the Managing Director. The petitioner-Company had availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.14,15,300/- from the respondent-Karnataka State Financial Corporation (for short ‘KSFC’). The loan was sanctioned on 16.04.1996. In this regard, the land along with the factory premises was mortgaged as primary security, while three other immovable properties were mortgaged as collateral security, by the respective owners, as guarantors. While it is an admitted fact that the primary security of the factory and premises along with the machinery was sold by KSFC for recovery of outstanding debt, KSFC has proceeded to recover the balance amount by bringing the other properties for sale, under Section 32(G) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short ‘SFC, Act’). The petitioners are before this Court seeking to challenge the initiation of proceedings undertaken by KSFC. 2. The prayer in the petition is as follows: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash Annexure-P, the notice issued by the second respondent in No. KSFC/MYS/ BO/ A514/226/1011 by the fourth respondent in Annexure-R, as also the public auction notice dated 15.09.2010 issued in the Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily newspaper in so far as it relates to serial No.4 as in Annexure-AF, originals of which are at pages 221229 respectively, “as also public auction notice dated 16.03.2011 issued by the fourth respondent in Vijaya Karnataka Kannada daily newspaper in No.KSFC/MYS/VT/HP6/1282/1011 as in Annexure-AG; (b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the second respondent to put the petitioners in possession of the factory shed located at 65, B6, Hootagalli Industrial Area Mysore 570 006; (c) Grant such other relief of reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, including the costs of this petition, to meet the ends of justice. 3. Sri. 3. Sri. Harsha D Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following grounds: (i) KSFC has proceeded parallely under Section 32(G) and 32(1)(aa) of the SFC Act, which is bad in law; (ii) After the Debt Recovery Tribunal were established, recovery of debts of Rs.10,00,000/and above cannot be initiated under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 or under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; (iii) The Assistant General Manager of KSFC is not empowered to initiate action under Section 32(G) of the SFC Act; (iv) The action for recovery of dues initiated under Section 32(G) of the SFC Act is barred by limitation; (v) It is incumbent on the part of the KSFC to have valued the property and such valuation should have been made known to the borrower; (vi) Action initiated against the surety, who is dead and since no notice has been issued to the legal representatives of the deceased-surety, and the action initiated is bad in law; and (vii) The officials of KSFC have not acted in a bonafide manner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments; (1) S.K.Bhargava Vs. Collector, Chandigarh and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 170 – there can be no doubt that while determining the sum due, the Managing Director should provide an opportunity of being heard before a final conclusion is arrived at. (2) Gajaraj Jain Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2004) 7 SCC 151 – In the matter of sale under Section 29, in the absence of valuation report and reserve price, the best price will not fetch. (3) Kerala Finance Corporation Vs. Vincent Paul and Another reported in AIR 2011 SC 1388 – The decision/intention to bring the property for sale shall be published by way of advertisement in two leading newspapers, one in vernacular language for having sufficient circulation in that locality; before conducting sale of immovable property, the authority concern shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property. (4) Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. (4) Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and Others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 455 –A Bank or a Financial Institution has the option or choice to proceed either under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or under the modes of recovery provided under State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Due) Act, 1972, deals with separate modes of recovery and such proceedings are not relatable to proceedings under State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. 5. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (supra) what remain to be seen is, whether the action initiated by KSFC under Section 32(G) of the SFC Act, and the consequential order of attachment dated 03/08.06.2010 (Annexure-R) issued by the Special Tahsildar, Public Auction Notices dated 15.09.2010 and 16.03.2011 (Annexures-AF and AG) are sustainable? In the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (supra), the following provisions have fallen for consideration: (a) Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; (b) Section 3 of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972; (c) Section 32(G) of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. 6. Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 is in pari materia with Section 3 of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. Similar action was initiated by the U.P. Financial Corporation for recovery of certain dues and citation for recovery was issued by the Tahsildar, Varanasi, for recovery of alleged dues as arrears of land revenues. When the action of the Corporation was challenged before the Allahabad High Court, the Division Bench was of the opinion that the Financial Corporation could proceed under the DRT Act or may proceed on other modes for recovery of debts as are permissible under SFC Act, viz., it can proceed under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the mode of recovery of debts under the U.P. Act is not saved under the said provision i.e., subsection (2) of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which is of considerable importance so far as the present case is concerned. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that the mode of recovery of debts under the U.P. Act is not saved under the said provision i.e., subsection (2) of Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which is of considerable importance so far as the present case is concerned. It was held that even a bare reading therein makes it clear that it is intended to be in addition to and not in derogation of certain statutes; one of which is the Financial Act. In other words, a Bank or Financial Institution has the option or choice to proceed either under the Act or under the modes of recovery permissible under the Financial Act. Finally, it was held that the U.P. Act deals with separate modes of recovery and such proceeding is not relatable to proceedings under the Financial Act. The order of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court was therefore set aside and the proceedings under the U.P. Act were quashed. 7. In the light of the above, it is clear that the action initiated by KSFC under Section 32(G) of the SFC Act, seeking to recover the amounts due as land revenue under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 cannot be sustained. The Official Memorandum dated 08.04.2010 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, clearly evidences the fact that the action seeking recovery as land revenue is initiated under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned notices at Annexure-P, dated 24.12.2008, Annexure-R, dated 03/08.06.2010, Public Auction Notices dated 15.09.2010 at Annexure-AF and 16.03.2011 at Annexure-AG are hereby quashed and set aside. It shall be, however, open to KSFC to take such action under the Act or the Financial Act, as is legally available to it. No order as to costs.