JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. 1. The instant special appeal is arising out from the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 3142/2013 whereby the interim order granted in the aforesaid writ petition was rejected on the ground that petitioner firm is not serious in settlement of the dispute with the RFC. 2. In this appeal, the learned Senior Advocate Sh. MR Singhvi vehemently argued that the appellant/writ petitioner company took the land measuring 1.6350 hectares on lease from the State Government and constructed resort and for the purpose of financing the said project, besides the promoters' contributions to the tune of Rs. 1.50/- crores, a term loan of Rs. 2.41/- crores was obtained by from the RFC in two different accounts which is first to the tune of Rs. 2.14/- crores, which was sanctioned on 29.12.1999 and another to the tune of Rs. 41/- lacs, which was sanctioned on 20.4.2001 but out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 27.54/- lacs only was disbursed. The rate of interest payable by the appellant/writ-petitioner under these loan accounts was 15.5% per annum on the first loan account and 16% on the second loan account and 5% penal interest in case of default and 16% interest on the funded interest converted into term loan in the year 2004. According to the appellant the company started its business in the month of April, 2001 and was doing well but on account of there being fall in the tourist industry, it was bound to have and did have a severe and adverse effect on the cash inflow and profits, therefore appellant-writ-petitioner's resort resulting in default in repayment of the interest and the principal amount of the respondent-Corporation which was to be started from 01.10.2005 as mentioned in the letter dated 12.5.2004 issued by the respondent-Corporation which they converted the funded interest into term loan to be paid in six quarterly installments upto 1.6.2008. 3. The petitioner-appellant was facing financial problems on account of aforesaid reasons, but in spite of that it repaid a sum of Rs. 84.41/- lacs in total towards said term loan uptil 21.11.2004. But despite aforesaid fact the respondent-Corporation took extreme step of recalling its entire loan with outstanding interest by issuing the legal notice. 3. The petitioner-appellant was facing financial problems on account of aforesaid reasons, but in spite of that it repaid a sum of Rs. 84.41/- lacs in total towards said term loan uptil 21.11.2004. But despite aforesaid fact the respondent-Corporation took extreme step of recalling its entire loan with outstanding interest by issuing the legal notice. The appellant-petitioner preferred writ petition before this court and said writ petition was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 466/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2006 with the direction to the appellant-petitioner to make a representation before the respondent-Corporation for settlement. Aggrieved with aforesaid order, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 888/2006 was field by the appellant-petitioner and came with the case that the substantial payment to the tune of. Rs. 2.02 crores have already been made by the company against the term loan of Rs. 2.41 crores within about 5-6 years and submitted that company may be granted time for settlement of the entire accounts by their own resources or by obtaining finance from other financial institutions after taking benefit of NOC issued by the respondent-Corporation. It was also submitted that respondent-Corporation be directed to provide the statement of accounts and also waive the penal interest as was agreed during the earlier negotiations. The said special appeal came to be disposed off vide order dated 13.8.2008 directing the appellant-petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs per month till 31.3.2009 or till the account is cleared up, whichever is earlier and with respect to the penal interest, it was directed that a representation before the respondent-Corporation and the respondent-Corporation directed to decide the same on its own merits objectively and dispassionately. In compliance of the aforesaid, the appellant-petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent-Corporation, however, the said relief was declined and representation of the appellant-petitioner was rejected with direction to proceed for recovery of Corporation's dues by initiating legal action as per the norms. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against the term loan of Rs. 2.41/- crores, the appellant-petitioner has deposited a total sum of Rs. 512.41/- lacs as against the total amount of term loan disbursed to it to the tune of Rs. 241.54/- lacs, but despite that the respondent-Corporation initiated the proceedings and took possession of the appellant-petitioner's unit on 19.10.2012 and thereafter, issued an auction notice. 2.41/- crores, the appellant-petitioner has deposited a total sum of Rs. 512.41/- lacs as against the total amount of term loan disbursed to it to the tune of Rs. 241.54/- lacs, but despite that the respondent-Corporation initiated the proceedings and took possession of the appellant-petitioner's unit on 19.10.2012 and thereafter, issued an auction notice. Feeling aggrieved of the same, appellant-petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3142/2013 seeking relief that impugned auction notice dated 16.3.2013 to the extent of the appellant-petitioner-company may kindly be quashed with further prayer that the respondent-Corporation may kindly be directed to consider the proposal of the appellant-petitioner-company for waiver of penal interest and reduction in the rate of interest at par with rate of interest charged by the Corporation during the contemporary period and extend consequential relief to the appellant-petitioner-company. In the aforesaid writ petition, an order was passed on 24.5.2013 whereby the respondent-corporation was restrained to finalize the auction. The writ petition was listed in the court on 11.1.2018. On that date, the learned Single Judge heard arguments upon the stay application and dismissed the stay application on the ground that on so many occasions, the appellant-petitioner has sought time to get matter resolved through negotiation and shown his eagerness to deposit all the dues of the RFC. Further observed that on 20.12.2017, the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that petitioner-firm is making every endeavour to clear all the dues demanded by the respondents, therefore, some time was granted to the petitioner to arrange the finances to clear the dues. On the date of hearing on 11.1.2018, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already found a buyer to sell the property but NOC from the RFC, to sell the property in question, is required and then only finances will be available with the petitioner, but the learned Single Judge dismissed the stay application on the ground that petitioner firm is not serious in settlement of dispute with the RFC vide order dated 11.1.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the term loan of Rs. 2.41/- crores upon the interest @ Rs. 15.5/- and 16.1 per annum was granted to the appellant and against the said amount Rs. 512.41/- lacs were repaid by the appellant and still RFC is insisting for remaining amount for which some breathing time is required. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the term loan of Rs. 2.41/- crores upon the interest @ Rs. 15.5/- and 16.1 per annum was granted to the appellant and against the said amount Rs. 512.41/- lacs were repaid by the appellant and still RFC is insisting for remaining amount for which some breathing time is required. Therefore, till final disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, the order may be passed to maintain status quo because from last more than 4 years the writ petition is pending in which stay order was operating. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent RFC submits that in the auction proceedings bid of respondent no. 5 M/s. Sun on Mount Hotels Pvt. Ltd was accepted and even after giving number of opportunities, the appellant did not settle the account, therefore, possession was taken and auction proceedings was initiated, but due to order, auction was not finalized and now it has been finalized after vacation of stay on 11.1.2018. It is also argued that conduct of the appellant-petitioner disentitled to get any relief. Therefore, there is no question to interfere in the order dated 11.1.2018. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that the auction proceedings of the property in question has been finalized and Rs. 74 lacs has been deposited by him and rest of the amount is to be deposited by him for taking possession, therefore, there is no question to disturb the order dated 11.1.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge to vacate the stay order granted on 24.5.2013. 8. After considering the entire facts of the case and the fact that writ petition is pending since 2013 and undisputedly in spite of granting opportunity to the appellant-petitioner, matter has not been settled and the amount of Rs. 512.41 lacs against the loan amount of Rs. 2.41 crores, with interest has been deposited by the appellant, the possession of the property has been taken in the year 2012, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to file an application for early hearing within a period of one week from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition itself within two weeks thereafter. For three weeks, the possession of the property in question shall not be handed over to the respondent No. 5. It is made clear that if the respondent will not file an application for early hearing within a period of one week, then this order will automatically come to an end. 9. Accordingly, this special appeal is hereby disposed of in above terms.