JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. Fate of SBCWP No. 4043/2010 depends upon the decision in SBCWP No. 226/2010, therefore, both these writ petitions are decided together by this common order. 2. In SBCWP No. 226/2010, the following prayers are made: "It is therefore, prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and ; (i) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 06.06.09 (Ann-4) and 07.12.09 (Annex-10) may be inquired into through an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation or in the alternative by an Judicial authority. (ii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondents may be directed to finalise the transfer of this property in favour of M/s Mangalam Art or its nominee till the matter is inquired into by an impendent agency or till the matter is pending investigation before Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur. (iii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the respondent RFC may be directed to hold auction of the industrial unit of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Cost of this writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (v) Any other appropriate direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted." 3. In SBCWP No. 4043/2010, the following prayers are made: "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed: - A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the land in the name of the petitioner while quashing the order dated 13.1.2010 (Annex.3) and any other order passed in consequence of the same affect. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to continue with his process of establishing the industry on the said land. C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. D. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in SBCWP No. 226/2010 will be referred as the 'borrower' whereas petitioner of SBCWP No. 4043/2010 will be referred as 'auction purchaser' hereinafter. 5. D. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in SBCWP No. 226/2010 will be referred as the 'borrower' whereas petitioner of SBCWP No. 4043/2010 will be referred as 'auction purchaser' hereinafter. 5. The facts, inter alia, involved in both these writ petitions, as summarised by this Court for adjudication are that the borrower took loans from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short 'the RFC' hereinafter) for expansion of its unit, which was set up in the year 1981. The loan of Rs. 3,92,000/- was advanced to the borrower in the year 1981 and thereafter another loan was advanced to it for a sum of Rs. 6,72,000/- in the month of April, 1985. The borrower has failed to repay the loan amount as per the schedule and, therefore, proceedings under Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951' hereinafter) were initiated against it. The possession of the unit was taken and an amount of Rs. 49,28,624/- was shown due against the borrower in the year 1992. 6. Thereafter, fixed assets of the borrower were sold to one Ram Avatar Agarwal and sale approval letter was also issued in favour of him. Being aggrieved with the same, another bidder viz. Devraj Pagaria filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed, against which a special appeal was filed, which too came to be dismissed by Division Bench of this Court and being aggrieved with the same, Devraj Pagaria filed an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting liberty to the borrower to move an application for waiver of penal interest with a direction to the RFC to dispose of the said application within 15 days. It was further directed that in case waiver is granted wholly or in part, the borrower shall pay the amount due to the RFC within four weeks from the date of communication of the order, however, if the borrower does pay the amount so due within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the RFC to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. 7. 7. The borrower did pay the due amount of the RFC as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and instead filed SBCWP No. 4993/2003 before this Court, which was dismissed as having become in-fructuous by passing order dated 01.02.2005, which reads as under: "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rajasthan Financial Corporation (for short the "RFC") has informed vide letter dated 19.1.2005 that the petitioner's matter is under consideration by RFC under the O.T.S. Scheme. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is hopeful that he may get the relief, therefore, this writ petition has become in-fructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court in case grievance remains. However, the interim order granted by this Court on 5.9.2003 shall continue till the decision is taken by RFC." 8. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the RFC for settlement of the loan account of the borrower. An offer was given to the borrower to settle the loan account by paying certain amount. The borrower did agree to pay the amount as assessed by the RFC for settlement of loan account and, therefore, the matter could be settled. At this stage, the borrower filed SBCWP No. 2374/2006 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by a detailed order dated 28.02.2008, which is reproduced as under: "The petitioner firm has preferred this writ petition with regard to settlement of its dues and recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents and made a prayer that impugned letters dated 24/2/2006 (Annex.28) and 25/2/2006 (Annex.29) may be quashed and respondents may be directed to settle the case of petitioner under OTS (one time settlement) Scheme, 1997. According to the facts of the case, in the year 1981 the respondent RFC sanctioned a lone of Rs. 3,92,000/- to the petitioner firm and thereafter another loan of Rs. 6,72,000/- was also sanctioned in the month of April, 1985. Upon default of payment of loan, proceedings under the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, 1951 were initiated and notices under Section 29 and 30 of the said Act were issued. After due process of law, the possession of the unit was taken and at the time of taking over the possession by the RFC, an amount of Rs. 49,28,624/- was due. Upon default of payment of loan, proceedings under the Rajasthan Financial Corporation Act, 1951 were initiated and notices under Section 29 and 30 of the said Act were issued. After due process of law, the possession of the unit was taken and at the time of taking over the possession by the RFC, an amount of Rs. 49,28,624/- was due. After taking possession of the said unit, it was put to auction and unit was auctioned on the basis of offer received from one Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal and sale approval letter was also issued in favour of Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal. Against the said auction, another bidder namely Shri Devraj Pagaria filed writ petition before this Court and said writ petition was dismissed. So also the Special Appeal filed by Shri Devraj Pagaria was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, Shri Devraj Pagaria approached Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, which was registered as SLP (C) No. 21007/98. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said SLP by passing the following order: "Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides. We are of the view that in the context of the affidavits filed in this Court, the order of the High Court is to be set aside. We set aside the same. Learned senior counsel appearing for the borrower submits that penal interest has been waived or is capable of being waived under a scheme. It will be open to the borrower to make an application to the 1st respondent for waiver of the penal interest, if he has filed any such application so far provided that the application is filed within two weeks from today. In case such application is received by the first respondent as stated above, the same shall be disposed by the 1st respondent within fifteen days thereafter and be communicated to the borrower by registered post, acknowledgment due. In case waiver is granted wholly or in part, the borrower shall pay the amount due to the Corporation, subject to such waiver, if any granted, within four weeks from the date of communication of the order. In case the borrower does pay the amount so due, within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the Corporation to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. In case the borrower does pay the amount so due, within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the Corporation to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. The money, if any, deposited by the previous purchaser will be paid back to him by the first respondent. Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly." Upon perusal of the aforesaid order, it is clear that Hon'ble Apex Court specifically observed in the proceedings, in which present petitioner was also party, that in case borrower does pay the amount so due within the aforesaid period, it shall be open to the Corporation to put the property to public auction afresh, in accordance with its procedure. In compliance of the said order, a representation of the original borrower - petitioner was considered by the competent authority and petitioner unit was informed to deposit Rs. 27,54,000/- in order to settle the accounts. The petitioner unit was satisfied with the settlement and, therefore, moved a contempt petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was decided on 7/4/2000. The petitioner has quoted in para 5, the order passed by Hon'ble Apex court, which reads as under:- "After hearing counsel on both sides we find that the demand of Rs. 27,54,000/- by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation is justified. The petitioner is granted 3 months time for paying the amount. If the amount is paid before that time the possession of the property will be restored. In case the amount is paid by that time, it will be open to the respondent to take action in accordance with law." Meaning thereby, the demand of Rs. 27,54,000/- was found to be justified by the Hon'ble Apex Court and three months time was granted to the firm to deposit the said amount but the original borrower-petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount in stipulated time, hence proceedings were initiated by the RFC. The petitioner is now challenging the further proceedings which were initiated by the RFC in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In my opinion, once the Hon'ble Apex Court has finally adjudicated the matter and held that amount of Rs. 27,54,000/- is justified then it is open for this Court to interfere in the matter. The petitioner is now challenging the further proceedings which were initiated by the RFC in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In my opinion, once the Hon'ble Apex Court has finally adjudicated the matter and held that amount of Rs. 27,54,000/- is justified then it is open for this Court to interfere in the matter. Likewise, petitioner was under obligation to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court to pay the amount within stipulated time, which was three months. Admittedly, the said amount was deposited, therefore, further proceedings were initiated by the RFC. In these circumstances, in my opinion, no interference is required in this case because respondents are proceeding against the petitioner as per the directions given by Hon'ble Apex Court, which cannot be questioned by way of filing present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed." 9. Aggrieved with the order dated 28.02.2008, the borrower preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 204/2008, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.03.2008, which reads thus; "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel for the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is based upon a consent order passed by the Apex Court whereby and where-under, the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 27,54,000/- to the Corporation. Owing to the nature of the order passed by the Supreme Court and the tenor of the prayer of the appellant, we hardly find any scope for interference. This appeal accordingly is dismissed." 10. After the decision of aforesaid Special Appeal, the entire assets of the unit of the borrower was put to auction in which the auction purchaser was the highest bidder. The Head Office Level Sale-cum-Negotiation Committee of the RFC decided to reauction the assets of the unit of the borrower as the offer of the auction purchaser was less than MRV. Pursuant to that, again the assets of the unit of the borrower were reauctioned, which also went in favour of the auction purchaser. At this stage, the petitioner preferred SBCWP NO. 3113/2008, which came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2008 and being aggrieved with the same, the borrower preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 935/2008, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2008. At this stage, the petitioner preferred SBCWP NO. 3113/2008, which came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2008 and being aggrieved with the same, the borrower preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 935/2008, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 22.10.2008. The order dated 22.10.2008 is reproduced hereunder: "By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.8.2008 dismissing the writ petition whereby the appellant had sought to challenge the auction notice Annexure- 3 dated 1.5.2008, and the letter dated 2.5.2008 being Annexure-8. It appears from the order that the matter had gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court more than once, and vide order dated 7.4.2007 as quoted in the impugned order the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the demand of Rs. 27,54,000/- by the Corporation is justified, and the petitioner was granted three months time for paying the amount, and it was directed that if the amount is paid before that time the possession of the property will be restored. In case the amount is paid by that time, it will be open to the respondent to take action in accordance with law. Of course, the amount was paid, and today learned counsel for the appellant agrees that the appellant will pay the amount of Rs. 24,05,000/- (Twenty Four Lakh Five Thousand) as mentioned in the letter dated 13.5.2008 Annexure R/4 along with contractual rate of interest thereon from 15.5.2008, and for that he may be given time upto 25.11.2008. This request is seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. In our view, a look at the letter dated 13.5.2008 issued by the Corporation available on the file of this D.B. Special Appeal at page-225 shows that it did proceed with noticing the outstanding amount against the appellant being Rs. 27.41 lacs, and after adjusting the payments made by the appellant the outstanding settlement amount was conveyed to be Rs. 17,24,473/-, and then adding interest upto 15.5.2008 a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- was claimed to be outstanding, and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount on or before 14.5.2008. We are informed that the writ petition was filed on 12.5.2008. In these circumstances, on the face of it it would be to insist on an impossiblity to call upon the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 24,05,000/- was claimed to be outstanding, and the appellant was directed to deposit the amount on or before 14.5.2008. We are informed that the writ petition was filed on 12.5.2008. In these circumstances, on the face of it it would be to insist on an impossiblity to call upon the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 24,05,000/- say within 24 hours. But then the fact remains that after filing of the present writ petition, the Corporation was claiming this amount to be outstanding. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice we think it appropriate to settle the controversy once for all by directing that if the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- along with contractual rate of interest by 25.11.2008, the writ petition will stand allowed, the liability of the appellant would stand discharged, and the Corporation will restore possession of the assets taken possession of by them. Obviously the auction would stand cancelled. We are mindful of the fact that auction has been conducted during pendency of the writ petition, but then by virtue of interim order of this Court that has been finalised, and that is also said to be made on deferred payment basis. However, looking to the past conduct of the appellant it is further clarified, that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount as aforesaid, on or before 25.11.2008, the appeal and the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed, and the Corporation will be free to finalise the auction, and proceed ahead with it. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as above." 11. It is to be noticed that the borrower has failed to pay the sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- along with contractual rate of interest by 25.11.2008 and pursuant to that the auction made in favour of the auction purchaser was finalised. The borrower then again filed SBCWP No. 975/2009, which came to be dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.02.2009. The order dated 06.02.2009 reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the Division Bench dated 22.10.2008, in which, the following directions were made : In these circumstances, in the interest of justice we think it appropriate to settle the controversy once for all by directing that if the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- along with contractual rate of interest by 25.11.2008, the writ petition will stand allowed, the liability of the appellant would stand discharged, and the Corporation will restore possession of the assets taken possession of by them. Obviously the auction would stand cancelled. We are mindful of the fact that auction has been conducted during pendency of the writ petition, but then by virtue of interim order of this Court that has been finalised, and that is also said to be made on deferred payment basis. However, looking to the past conduct of the appellant it is further clarified, that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount as aforesaid, on or before 25.11.2008, the appeal and the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed, and the Corporation will be free to finalise the auction, and proceed ahead with it. After perusing the aforesaid direction/observation made by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 935/2008 dated 22.10.2008, in my opinion, no interference is required in this case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed." 12. Being aggrieved with the same, the borrower preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 216/2009, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2009. The order dated 18.02.2009 is reproduced hereunder: "1. The special appeal is directed against order dated 6.2.09 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking direction against the respondent-Rajasthan Financial Corporation to apprise the appellant of the actual amount outstanding against him after adjusting all due payments made and so also to quash the auction proceedings finalised in favour of auction purchaser, stands dismissed. 2. In the first instance, the appellant preferred a writ petition No. 3113/08 before this Court inter alia to quash and set aside the advertisement dated 1.5.08 and letter dated 2.5.08 , whereby the property of the appellant was put to auction for recovery of the amount outstanding. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th August,08. Aggrieved by the said order, a special appeal preferred by the appellant was disposed of at Bench of this court vide order dated 22.10.88 in the following directions:- "In these circumstances, in the interest of justice we think it appropriate to settle the controversy once for all by directing that if the appellant pays a sum of Rs. Aggrieved by the said order, a special appeal preferred by the appellant was disposed of at Bench of this court vide order dated 22.10.88 in the following directions:- "In these circumstances, in the interest of justice we think it appropriate to settle the controversy once for all by directing that if the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- alongwith contractual rate of interest by 25.11.2008, the writ petition will stand allowed, the liability of the appellant would stand discharged, and the Corporation will restore possession of the assets taken possession of by them. Obviously the auction would stand cancelled. We are mindful of the fact that auction has been conducted during pendency of the writ petition, but then by virtue of interim order of this Court that has been finalised, and that is also said to be made on deferred payment basis. However, looking to the past conduct of the appellant it is further clarified, that if the appellant fails to deposit the amount as aforesaid, on or before 25.11.2008, the appeal and the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed, and the Corporation will be free to finalise the auction, and proceed ahead with it." 3. Admittedly, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- alongwith contractual rate of interest within the stipulated period and therefore, the auction has already been finalised by the R.F.C. in favour of the auction purchaser. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant vide communication dated 24.10.08 requested the R.F.C. to inform a statement of final outstanding amount against him but R.F.C. vide letter dated 7.11.08 did neither adjusted the amount earlier paid by the appellant nor communicated to the appellant that the said amount mentioned in the letter was for full and final settlement of all outstanding dues against the appellant. 5. It is to be noticed that vide order dated 22.10.08 passed by a Bench of this Court, the controversy was settled once for all and specific directions were issued to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- alongwith contractual amount of interest by 25.11.08. Therefore, no further quantification was required to be made at the end of R.F.C. and in compliance of the directions of this Court, the appellant was required to discharge the liability by making payment in terms of order latest by 25.11.08. 24,05,000/- alongwith contractual amount of interest by 25.11.08. Therefore, no further quantification was required to be made at the end of R.F.C. and in compliance of the directions of this Court, the appellant was required to discharge the liability by making payment in terms of order latest by 25.11.08. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel that despite the representation being made, the R.F.C. has quantified the amount and therefore he could deposit the amount, is devoid of any merit. 6. In view of the discussion above, we do find any error in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this intra court appeal. 7. Accordingly, the special appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs." 13. It appears that the matter then again went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, no relief was granted to the borrower. 14. Now the borrower has filed SBCWP No. 226/2010 while claiming the above quoted reliefs. 15. SBCWP No. 4043/2010 is preferred by the auction purchaser essentially with the prayer for setting aside the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'RIICO') with contention that the auction purchaser has purchased the assets of the property in auction proceedings admittedly conducted by the RFC and as such he has acquired title and interest in the property in question and the RIICO neither has any authority nor any jurisdiction to transfer to the borrower by passing the order dated 13.01.2010 solely on the ground that SBCWP No. 226/2010 filed by the borrower is pending consideration. 16. Learned counsel for the borrower has argued that as a matter of fact the auction proceedings conducted by the RFC for selling the assets of the unit of the borrower is ex facie illegal on account of several irregularities committed by the Officers of the RFC and, therefore, the said auction proceedings are liable to be set aside. 17. Learned counsel for the borrower has further submitted that in respect of the irregularity committed by the Officers of the RFC, charge-sheet has been filed against them and a criminal complaint has also been filed in the Anti Corruption Bureau. 17. Learned counsel for the borrower has further submitted that in respect of the irregularity committed by the Officers of the RFC, charge-sheet has been filed against them and a criminal complaint has also been filed in the Anti Corruption Bureau. It is submitted that in view of the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed against the Officers of the RFC, who conducted the auction proceedings illegally and a complaint against them has also been filed in the Anti Corruption Bureau, in which the investigating officer has found prima facie case made out against the officers of the RFC, it is clear that the auction proceedings are farce and are liable to be set aside. 18. Learned counsel for the borrower has further argued that as the Anti Corruption Bureau is conducting fair investigation in the matter, it will be just and proper to order that the investigation in the matter of complaint filed by the borrower be carried out by an independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation. 19. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the borrower has placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ram Kishun & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2288 . He has also placed reliance on decision of this Court dated 13.08.2013 rendered in Shyam Sunder Arora & Ors. v. The Collector, Hanumangarh Junction & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2181/2007). 20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RFC has vehemently opposed SBCWP No. 226/2010 and argued that as a matter of fact the borrower has approached this Court with clean hands. It is contended that there is no mention in the writ petition about the earlier orders/judgments passed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject-matter and the writ petition filed by the borrower is liable to be dismissed on this account alone. 21. It is further argued that the auction proceedings, whereby the assets of the industrial unit were auctioned in favour of the auction purchaser, were questioned by the borrower in SBCWP No. 975/2009, however, when the said writ petition has been dismissed by this Court, it is open for the borrower to again challenge the same auction proceedings by filing fresh writ petition. It is also argued that against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 975/2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the borrower was dismissed, the borrower preferred D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 216/2009, which also came to be dismissed on 18.02.2009 and thereafter the borrower approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein also, it has got any relief and in such circumstances, the writ petition filed by the borrower is liable to be dismissed with costs. 22. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is true that a charge-sheet has been filed against the Officers of the RFC in relation to the auction proceedings, however, after a full fledged enquiry, those officers were exonerated as nothing wrong was found in the auction proceedings. 23. In respect of the enquiry conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, learned counsel for the RFC has submitted that the Anti Corruption Bureau has even registered a case for preliminary investigation and closed the case by recommending to the RFC to initiate disciplinary proceedings against its officers. 24. Learned counsel for the RFC has, therefore, prayed that there is no force in the writ petition filed by the borrower and the same is liable to be dismissed. In respect of SBCWP No. 4043/2010, learned counsel for the RFC has submitted that there is no illegality in passing of the order dated 13.01.2010 by the RIICO as SBCWP No. 226/2010 is pending consideration before this Court and therefore, it is rightly decided to transfer the land to the auction purchaser till the decision of SBCWP No. 226/2010. 25. In support of above contentions, learned counsel for the RFC has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in U.P. Financial Corporation v. Gem Cap. (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 299 , The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills & Anr., JT 1994 (5) S.C. 280, U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. v. Naini Oxygen & Acetylene Gas Ltd. & Anr., (1995) 2 SCC 754 , Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. Micro Cast Rubber & Allied Products (P) Ltd. & Ors., JT 1996 (6) S.C. 37, Orissa State Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Hotel Jogendra, JT 1996 (5) S.C. 322, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 206 , Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Hotel Jogendra, JT 1996 (5) S.C. 322, State of Bihar & Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 206 , Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. v. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 496 , Karnataka State Industrial Investment & Development Corporation Ltd. v. Cavalet India Ltd. & Ors., (2005) 4 SCC 456 , State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 , Punjab Financial Corporation v. M/s. Surya Auto Industries, 2010 AIR (SC) 266 and in T.C. Thangaraj v. V.Engammal & Ors, AIR 2011 SC 3010 . Learned counsel has also placed reliance on decisions of this Court rendered in M/s. Som Prakash & Sons Bricks (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation & Ors., 2006 (6) RDD 3510 , M/s. Bageshree Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Raj. Financial Corporation (Civil Writ No. 4896/2005 decided on 03.08.2007) and Rajasthan Financial Corporation v. M/s Chetak Electric & Iron Industries, (2008) 3 RLW (Raj) 2530. 26. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the auction purchaser has vehemently argued that the auction purchaser has purchased the property in question in the auction proceeding conducted by the RFC and the said auction proceeding has attained finality, therefore, there is no reason for the RIICO to refuse to execute the transfer-deed in favour of the auction purchaser. 27. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the auction purchaser has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 560 . 28. Heard learned counsels for the rival parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 29. It is to be noticed that while deciding D.B.Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 935/2008, the Division Bench of this Court gave a direction to the borrower to pay a sum of Rs. 24,05,000/- along with contractual rate of interest by stipulated date. The Division Bench has clearly observed that the said order is passed in the interest of justice to settle the controversy once for all. 24,05,000/- along with contractual rate of interest by stipulated date. The Division Bench has clearly observed that the said order is passed in the interest of justice to settle the controversy once for all. Simultaneously, the Division Bench also gave a specific direction that if the borrower fails to deposit the amount as aforesaid on or before 25.11.2008, the appeal and the writ petition will stand automatically dismissed, and the RFC will be free to finalise the auction, and proceed ahead with it. 30. Admittedly, the borrower did pay the amount of Rs. 24,05,000/- up to 25.11.2008 and pursuant to the observations made by the Division Bench, the auction made in favour of the auction purchaser came to be finalised. 31. The borrower had thereafter preferred SBCWP No. 975/2009 questioning the procedure of conducting auction while making specific prayer for cancellation of auction in favour of the auction purchaser. The said prayer is reproduced hereunder: "(ii) By an appropriate writ, direction or order, the approval of sale in favour of respondent auction purchaser may be quashed as it is against the norms and rules of RFC and the said procedure for auction is full of favouritism in favour of auction purchaser." 32. The SBCWP No. 975/2009 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2009, the said order has already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. The Special Appeal filed against the order dated 06.02.2009 has also been dismissed. 33. From the above facts, it is clear that the auction proceedings were finalised as per the directions given by this Court in the order dated 22.10.2008 passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No. 935/2008 and the challenge of the borrower to the said auction proceedings has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.02.2009 passed in SBCWP No. 975/2009 and the order dated 18.02.2009 passed in D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No. 216/2009. 34. It also appears that against the aforesaid orders, the borrower had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, no relief was granted to him. 35. Looking to the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that now it is open for the borrower to challenge the auction proceedings by alleging irregularities and the said challenge of the borrower is tenable. Hence, rejected. 36. 35. Looking to the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that now it is open for the borrower to challenge the auction proceedings by alleging irregularities and the said challenge of the borrower is tenable. Hence, rejected. 36. So far as contention of the borrower to the effect that the charge-sheet has been filed against the Officers of the RFC and investigation was conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau in relation to the auction proceedings is concerned, suffice to say that the Officers of the RFC have been exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the Anti Corruption Bureau has also found any case against them as evident from the reply filed on behalf of Anti Corruption Bureau in SBCWP No. 226/2010. 37. It is also to be noticed that the borrower had filed a private complaint in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur under section 156(3) CrPC, however, the same has also been closed, against which the borrower has already filed a miscellaneous petition before this Court, which is pending consideration and looking to this fact also, no relief can be granted to the borrower. 38. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the borrower to the effect that the investigation be handed over to the CIB is concerned, the same is also tenable as it is a settled law that no such directions can be issued by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in routine manner and this extra-ordinary power can be exercised where the incident may have national or international ramification or to instil confidence in investigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra) has held as under: "70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations." 39. In T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying on its decision rendered in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra) has deprecated the practice of giving directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into a complaint in routine manner. 40. In my opinion the other judgments referred to by the counsels for the parties are liable to be taken into consideration in view of the above noted detail facts and circumstances of the case. 41. Resultantly, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 226/2010 fails and is hereby dismissed. However, S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4043/2010 is allowed. Order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the RIICO is set aside. The respondents are directed to transfer the land in the name of auction purchaser forthwith. 42. There shall be no order as to costs.