JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Yadav, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2. 3. Heard Mrs. Richa Sanchita, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-. “For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 93,750/- deposited towards purchase of a unit on auction, to pay a sum of Rs. 24,375/- deposited by petitioner Firm before Adityapur Industrial Development Authority towards transfer of land and to pay further sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- incurred towards construction of boundary wall on the auctioned premise and to further pay Rs. 7,20,000/- spent by petitioner towards security of the auction premises along with statutory and penal interest.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Bihar State Financial Corporation published an advertisement for auction sale of unit namely M/s Ashvi Electric in daily newspaper on 5.6.1997 and pursuant to such auction notice, the petitioner duly participated in the auction and the petitioner being the highest bidder, the unit was sold to the petitioner vide sale order dated 16.9.1997. Thereafter, an agreement of sale dated 08.12.1997 was entered into between the petitioner and the Bihar State Financial Corporation. The petitioner paid a total amount of Rs.93,750/- to Bihar State Financial Corporation which included the bid amount and the down-payment. Thereafter, the property was handed over to the petitioner by Bihar State Financial Corporation on 10.12.1997 and the sale order dated 16.9.1997 was also issued to the petitioner wherein the balance amount of Rs. 2,81,250/- was converted into loan repayable in a period of five years in twenty quarterly equal installments each of Rs.14,062.50 and the payment of installment was to begin with effect from 01.01.1998. Counsel further submits that a sum of Rs.24,375/- was deposited by the petitioner with respondent no.3 being the dues of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority which was payable by the original promoter. The petitioner also incurred further expenses on account of construction of boundary wall and also for maintenance of Security Guard on the premises. Counsel further submits that a sum of Rs.24,375/- was deposited by the petitioner with respondent no.3 being the dues of Adityapur Industrial Development Authority which was payable by the original promoter. The petitioner also incurred further expenses on account of construction of boundary wall and also for maintenance of Security Guard on the premises. However, the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.111 of 1998 (R) was filed before the High Court by the original promoter for quashing the entire sale process and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 21.05.1999. The sale made in favour of the writ petitioner was set-aside by this Hon’ble Court and the Bihar State Financial Corporation was directed to give possession of unit to the original promoter i.e., Ashvic Electric who was the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 111 of 1998 (R). Pursuant thereto the present writ petitioner was served with a notice dated 22.11.2007, issued by Bihar State Financial Corporation asking the petitioner to handover the possession of the property to Bihar State Financial Corporation in response to which the present writ petitioner served a legal notice dated 29.11.07 asking the Bihar State Financial Corporation to pay the amount which has been realized by Bihar State Financial Corporation as well as by Adityapur Industrial Development Authority and also amount on account of expenses incurred by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing boundary wall, expenses towards security guard and expenses towards deposit made with the electricity board. However, possession of the property was handed over to the respondent-Corporation on 10.12.07, but the grievance of the petitioner in connection with the refund of amount deposited with Bihar State Financial Corporation and Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority as well as other expenses and charges was not considered, and in this background the instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon the respondents to refund the said amount with statutory interest. 6. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner was handed over the possession of the property as back as on 10.12.1997, and as per the sale order, itself, the petitioner was to repay the remaining amount within a period of five years commencing from 01.01.1998, but on account of interim order dated 09.11.1998 passed in writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 111 of 1998 (R), where the respondent-Corporation was defending the action taken by the Corporation, and also the auction sale made in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner throughout enjoyed the property and further no payment was made by the petitioner and the petitioner continued to enjoy the property and utilized the property for the purposes of manufacture. He refers to para-7 of the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.111 of 1998 (R), wherein, the case of the petitioner has been recorded and it appears that the petitioner had throughout enjoyed the property without making any further payment to the respondent-Corporation. 7. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that under such circumstances at best, the petitioner may be entitled to amount of Rs.93,750/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-Corporation but so far as the interest is concerned there can be no question of payment of interest because the petitioner himself had enjoyed the property without making any further payment to the respondent-Corporation. Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that he has received instructions from the respondent-Corporation, that for the ends of justice, they are ready to refund the amount of Rs. 93,750/- but so far as the interest is concerned, there is no question for payment of interest on account of fact that the petitioner has already enjoyed the property without making any further payment to the respondent-Corporation. 8. Counsel for the respondent-Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority has submitted that the petitioner never filed any representation before Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority for the purposes of refund of Rs. 24,375/- but the counsel for the respondent-AIADA has also taken instructions from respondent-AIADA and she has been instructed that respondent-AIADA is ready to refund an amount of Rs.24,375/- to the petitioner but so far as the interest is concerned she submits that the petitioner has throughout enjoyed the property and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the said amount. 9. 9. After hearing the counsels for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that, admittedly, the petitioner was the auction purchaser of the property and ultimately the auction sale was set-aside by order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 111 of 1998 (R). Admittedly, the property was handed over to the petitioner on 10.12.1997 and the writ petition was decided by this Court on 21.05.1999, wherein, the sale was set-aside. Thereafter, the matter went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2007 and the petitioner throughout enjoyed the property in spite of the sale having been set-aside as back as on 21.05.1999, itself. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner ultimately handed over the possession of the property to the respondents only on 10.12.2007. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that the petitioner enjoyed the property right from 10.12.1997 to 10.12.2007 by making payment of Rs.93,750/- to Bihar State Finance Corporation and Rs.24,375/- to Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority. Since the property was being enjoyed by the petitioner, the petitioner had to take electricity connection, had to make arrangement for security and had to take care of the property while enjoying the property. In such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in connection with the expenses which is said to have been incurred by the petitioner in connection with security arrangement, boundary, electricity connection etc. This Court, further finds that there is no material on record to quantify as to how much amount the petitioner has incurred in connection with security arrangement and construction of boundary wall etc. over the property. Otherwise also, this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to grant relief on account of the expenses incurred in connection with boundary wall or security arrangement as claimed to have been incurred by the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner throughout enjoyed the property. over the property. Otherwise also, this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to grant relief on account of the expenses incurred in connection with boundary wall or security arrangement as claimed to have been incurred by the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner throughout enjoyed the property. So far as the amount paid to Bihar State Finance Corporation and AIADA is concerned, this Court finds that the respondents have fairly submitted that they are ready to refund this amount to the petitioner and they may do so within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of representation along with the copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation to refund the amount of Rs.93,750/- and a direction upon Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority to refund an amount of Rs.24,375/- to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of representation along with this order. In view of the fact that the petitioner has throughout enjoyed the property this court is not inclined to grant any relief on account of interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.93,750/- and Rs.24,375/-. 11. This writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.