ORDER : M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant/writ petitioner had challenged the Proceedings of the Order of the Respondent dated 22.03.2018, in and by which, the Respondent has invoked Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (In short “SFC Act”) and called upon the appellant to pay the dues with interest within a week's time from the date of receipt of the Notice, failing which, the movable and immovable assets of the appellant mortgaged/hypothecated with them shall be taken over possession for realizing the dues payable to the Corporation as on the date of taking over possession, without prejudice to initiate action for any other mode of recovery for the balance amount due, without any further Notice in this regard. 2. The Writ Petition, after vontst, came to be dismissed by an Order dated 16.07.2018. Challenging the legality of the said Order, the writ petitioner came forward with this Writ Appeal. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner had availed the financial assistance from the respondent Corporation for the purpose of running a Hotel Project and for the due repayment loan, he has also mortgaged the immovable property at R.S.No.46/1, Mullodai, Pondy-Cuddalore Road (ECR), Bahour Commune, Puducherry and as on 31.12.2011, they had the arrears of Rs.1,41,44,033/- with subsequent interest. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner challenging the impugned recovery Notice dated 22.03.2018, filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6811 of 2012 praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus and consequential direction directing the respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 23.02.2012 by restructuring the repayment schedule in respect of the loan availed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge had disposed of the Writ Petition by Order dated 12.12.2012 and the relevant portion of the Order is extracted hereunder : “(i). The petitioner shall pay Rs.50 lakhs within a period of 21 days from today and the balance amount of Rs.45,68,345/- (9568345-5000000) shall be paid by the petitioner in three equal monthly installments thereafter. (ii). If the petitioner has paid the interest amount of Rs.95,68,345/- as stated above, the respondent directed to reschedule the entire principal outstanding amount upto maximum of two years as per their letter dated 10.01.2012, within a period of four weeks on completion of the payment of installments as stated above. (iii). (ii). If the petitioner has paid the interest amount of Rs.95,68,345/- as stated above, the respondent directed to reschedule the entire principal outstanding amount upto maximum of two years as per their letter dated 10.01.2012, within a period of four weeks on completion of the payment of installments as stated above. (iii). If the petitioner fails to comply with the condition, it is open for the respondent to proceed in accordance with law. (iv). The respondent is also directed to consider sympathetically the payment of penal interest of Rs.6,42,502/-and pass orders taking into account the pleas raised by the petitioner as to the Thane Cyclone and also escalation of the prices, besides the delay in getting the Food License and Bar License. 6. The appellant aggrieved by mode of disposal of the Writ Petition, filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2878 of 2012 and it was entertained and subsequently taken up for final disposal. 7. The Division Bench of this Court, after exhaustive consideration of the factual aspects and various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, observed that there is no bonafide on the part of the appellant in seeking for six months’ time and further observed that there is fairness in the action of the respondent in granting waiver of Rs.1,11,41,384/- towards interest and on the other hand, the appellant/writ petitioner did not exhibit any fairness in discharge of the amount due and payable to the respondent and therefore, vide judgment dated 04.12.2017, has dismissed the Writ Appeal and vacated the interim order. 8. The appellant had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the said order, by filing Special Leave Petition in SLP(C) No.8255 of 2018 and vide order dated 16.04.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dismissed the Special Leave Petition by observing that “we do not find any legal and valid ground for interference. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” 9. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21360 of 2018 praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to sell the house sites in (1) R.S.No.46/1 measuring 24132 sq.ft and (2) T.S.No.1795 measuring 4060 sq.feet and deposit the sale proceeds directly to the respondent corporation by the prospective purchasers and settle the loan amount giving concession available for One Time Settlement and crediting subsidy amount and clear the loan. 10. 10. The Writ Petition was entertained and the respondent had filed counter affidavit refuting allegations and also took a stand that despite several opportunities given the respondent did not choose to clear the dues and left with no option the respondent was constrained to move the recovery proceedings under Sec.29(1) of the SFC Act. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2018. 11. It is also to be noted at this juncture that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Appeal, came to be passed on 16.07.2018 and it is also brought to the knowledge of this Court that so far no appeal has been preferred against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition in WP No.21360 of 2018 dated 10.12.2018. 12. Mr.V.S. Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that no proper valuation has been done in respect of the secured immovable property and subsidy amount is yet to be disbursed to the petitioner and admittedly the market value of the property is much more and also submits that if final opportunity is granted to the appellant/writ petitioner, he would make the payment and prays for some accommodation. 13. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Corporation would submit that the appellant/writ petitioner had developed the habit of re-litigation and despite very many attempt made by filing number of writ petitions to stall the recovery proceedings, all his efforts have ended in failure. As of now, the appellant is liable for a sum of Rs.5,45,54,103/- (Rupees Five Crores Forty Five Lakhs Fifty Four thousand One hundred three only) to the respondent/Corporation and since it is a substantial amount, they want to realise the same by selling the secured assets. 14. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 04.12.2017 in W.A.No.2878 of 2012 and would submit that in the above said judgment, various judgments rendered by Apex Court as well as this Court have been considered and proposition has been laid down that in the matter of recovery of loan this Court, cannot re-write the terms of contract and since the scope of judicial review is very limited in terms of settled legal position, this Court cannot interfere with the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent. 15. 15. This Court paid it's attention to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 16. The appellant/writ petitioner had availed the following loan from the respondent/corporation: Date of sanction Amount sanctioned in lakhs Condition I loan 30.01.2004 85 Loan amount has to be repaid with interest on quarterly basis in 24 quarterly instalments upto 2013. II loan 13.02.2007 33 Loan amount has to be repaid with interest on quarterly basis in 28 quarterly instalments upto 2015. III loan 29.11.2007 46 Loan amount has to be repaid with interest on quarterly basis in 28 quarterly instalments upto 2015. IV 24.03.2010 36 Loan amount has to be repaid with interest on quarterly basis in 32 quarterly instalments upto 2019. V 30.06.2010 34 Loan amount has to be repaid with interest on quarterly basis in 24 quarterly instalments utp 2017. 17. The appellant/writ petitioner had availed loan by creating mortgage in respect of specific immovable property and since he has committed default in paying the instalment, a Notice dated 10.01.2012 was issued calling upon them, to remit a sum of Rs.68,82,000/- and since it was not complied, a notice dated 23.02.2012 under Section 29 of SFC's Act was issued to take possession of the Hotel premises without prejudice to initiate action for any other mode of recovery for the balance amount due. 18. The appellant/writ petitioner, challenging the recovery proceedings filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.6811 of 2012 and it was disposed of by this Court on 12.12.2012 with some directions which have been extracted in the earlier paragraph. 19. The appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the mode of disposal of the Writ Petition, filed Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2878 of 2012 and it was entertained and the appeal itself came to be dismissed on 04.12.2017. The Division Bench of this Court after referring to the various judgments especially the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corpn Ltd vs Cavalet India Ltd and others reported in (2005) 4 SCC 456 , wherein at Paragraphs 19 and 20, in and by which, principles have been summarised and it is useful to refer the same:- “19. From the aforesaid, the legal principles that emerge are: (i) The High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit as an appellate authority over the acts and deeds of the financial corporation and seek to correct them. The Doctrine of fairness does not convert the writ courts into appellate authorities over administrative authorities. (ii) In a matter between the corporation and its debtor, a writ court has no say except in two situations; (a) there is a statutory violation on the part of the corporation or (b) where the corporation acts unfairly i.e., unreasonably. (iii) In commercial matters, the Courts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to which that task is assigned. (iv) Unless the action of the financial corporation is mala fide, even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however more prudent, commercial or businesslike it may be, for the decision of the financial corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the corporation liable. (v) In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold and this could be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. (vi) Public auction is not the only mode to secure the best price by inviting maximum public participation, tender and negotiation could also be adapted. (vii) The financial corporation is always expected to try and realize the maximum sale price by selling the assets by following a procedure which is transparent and acceptable, after due publicity, wherever possible and if any reason is indicated or cause shown for the default, the same has to be considered in its proper perspective and a conscious decision has to be taken as to whether action under Section 29 of the Act is called for. Thereafter, the modalities for disposal of seized unit have to be worked out. (viii) Fairness cannot be a one-way street. The fairness required of the financial corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. Thereafter, the modalities for disposal of seized unit have to be worked out. (viii) Fairness cannot be a one-way street. The fairness required of the financial corporations cannot be carried to the extent of disabling them from recovering what is due to them. While not insisting upon the borrower to honour the commitments undertaken by him, the financial corporation alone cannot be shackled hand and foot in the name of fairness. (ix) Reasonableness is to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price. 20. True, the exercise of the right by a financial corporation under Section 29 of the Act should be fair and reasonable. Ultimately, whether the action of the financial corporation is bona fide or not would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 20. The Division Bench has also taken note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Digivision Electronics Ltd., Retistered Office at No.A5 & 6, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32 vs Indian Bank rep by its Deputy General Manager, Head Office, 31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 1 and another, reported in 2005(3) LW 269 and Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment corporation vs Millenium Business Solutions Private Limited, reported in 2004 (5) CTC 689 , wherein it is observed that this Court cannot pass any such order in writ jurisdiction since directing one time settlement or granting installments really amounts to rescheduling the loan, which can only be done by the bank or financial institution which granted the loan. 21. It was further observed that in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot re-schedule the loan and a writ lies when there is violation of law or error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Court must exercise restraint in such matters and not depart from well settled legal principles. 22. While advancing the argument, a request was made to sell the property by way of private sale and deposit the proceeds and in the light of the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the request also came to be rejected. 23. It was pointed out by the respondent/corporation that the appellant/writ petitioner filed one more Writ Petition in W.P.No.21360 of 2018 praying for the very same relief and it also came to be dismissed on 10.12.2018 and no appeal has been filed so far challenging the said order. 23. It was pointed out by the respondent/corporation that the appellant/writ petitioner filed one more Writ Petition in W.P.No.21360 of 2018 praying for the very same relief and it also came to be dismissed on 10.12.2018 and no appeal has been filed so far challenging the said order. 24. Insofar as the impugned order dismissing the writ petition is concerned, the learned Judge has taken note of the factual aspects and recorded a finding that he is continuously defaulting and on account of the same the respondent/Corporation is not in a position to grant any other concession as per the terms and conditions of the loan and that he has not entitled to any indulgence from this Court. 25. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation the period of default commenced in the year 2012 and despite a lapse of six (6) years the appellant/writ petitioner is unable to clear the dues in it's entirety and very many attempts have been made to stall the recovery proceedings in the form of litigation which ended in failure. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant, in fact, wants this Court to issue positive direction to the Respondent/Corporation to accede to their request for One Time Settlement or at least re-scheduling the loan. 27. The grant of loan was based upon the contract/agreement entered into between the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent and in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court, cannot re-schedule loan and cannot re-write the terms of contract and issue a positive direction for re-scheduling the loan. The respondent/corporation had shown enough indulgence, but the appellant/writ petitioner was unable to take advantage of the same. 28. It is brought to the knowledge of this Court that public auction of the secured properties is fixed on 31.01.2019 and by way of last attempt the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that he would pay some amount to the respondent/corporation and therefore, this Court can direct the respondent/Corporation to postpone the date of public auction. 29. This Court is unable to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner for the reason that the Respondent/Corporation have shown enough indulgence to the appellant/writ petitioner to repay the loan amount, and they failed to avail such benevolence. 30. 29. This Court is unable to accede to the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner for the reason that the Respondent/Corporation have shown enough indulgence to the appellant/writ petitioner to repay the loan amount, and they failed to avail such benevolence. 30. In the considered opinion of the Court, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the factual aspect and applied law and rightly reached the conclusion to dismiss the Writ Petition. This Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order and finds no merit in the Writ Appeal. 31. In fine, the Writ Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed in W.P.No.10824 of 2018 dated 16.07.2018. No costs.