JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present special appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, challenges the order (dated 08.03.2018), of a learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. This case has a chequered history; the appellant (hereafter "company") was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2.14 crores, by the respondent (hereafter "RFC") on 19.07.1999 (which was disbursed on 30.03.2001) and an additional loan of Rs. 41.24 lakhs, (disbursed on 30.03.2001). As the company defaulted in repayment of the loan, RFC issued notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, and took possession of all its moveable/immoveable assets. 3. The company, thus preferred a writ petition (SBCWP No. 456/2005) before this court, urging various grounds and various grievances including the plea that RFC's inaction in not settling the company's account was arbitrary; that RFC gave discriminatory treatment to it, as against other borrowers. The company's writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 15.09.2006. An appeal, to the Division Bench was disposed of by order dated 13.08.2008. However, no substantial relief was given to the company. 4. While disposing the company's appeal, on 13.08.2008, the Division Bench directed RFC to consider the company's request for waiver of penal interest in accordance with law, and extended the period of repayment by a few months. The company failed to make repayment in the time allowed by the Division Bench nor was it happy with RFC's offer of waiver of 50% of penal interest and insisted that the entire amount of penal interest be waived. 5. RFC thereafter took possession of the company's unit on 19.10.2012 and put it to auction by publishing a notice dated 13.03.2013 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in Rajasthan and Delhi. It is relevant to note that though one notice was published on 16.03.2013, however, three separate dates were fixed for auction, viz., 28.03.2013, 25.04.2013; and 23.05.2013, inviting sealed bids. 6. In the first auction, no bidder came forward, whereas in the second auction, held on 25.04.2013, two bidders, namely, Ajit Singh and Sun on Mount Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (the fifth respondent herein) participated but the same was not finalized. Thereafter, on 23.05.2013, the third auction was held, when only the fifth respondent appeared as a sole bidder and offered a sum of Rs. 8.21 crores. 7. Thereafter, on 23.05.2013, the third auction was held, when only the fifth respondent appeared as a sole bidder and offered a sum of Rs. 8.21 crores. 7. Meanwhile, the company filed a writ petition (being SBCWP No. 3142/2013). An interim order was passed by the court, however enabling RFC to continue with the negotiation with the further condition that it could not finalize the bid. When the writ petition came up for consideration by the learned Single Judge, the company again urged almost similar grievances, which was raised earlier; that RFC had meted out discriminatory treatment to it, vis-à-vis other borrowers, inasmuch as loan accounts of other borrowers were settled at much lesser amount, whereas its loan account was not settled on the same terms. The company, in its writ petition, also raised a grievance that RFC ought to have waived the entire penal interest, as was done by it in various other cases and that the RFC erred in inviting sealed bids for the purpose of selling the assets of the appellant-Company. 8. A learned single Judge dismissed the company's writ petition, inter alia observing that the company's earlier writ petition (SBCWP No. 456/2005), for almost identical reliefs, had been dismissed by a coordinate Bench on 15.09.2006 and the appeal against that order had been dismissed by the Division Bench, through its order dated 13.08.2008. 9. The learned single judge repelled all the objections raised by the company and held that scope of interference by the writ Court in the matters relating to auctions and functioning of a State Financial Corporation, is minimal. 10. Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Manoj Bhandari and Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, reiterated the same arguments, which were advanced before the learned Single Judge. Relying on various documents on record, Mr. Singhvi pointed out that as against the MRV of the assets to the tune of Rs. 14.67 crores, as on 16.11.2012, RFC sold the company's assets for a meager sum of Rs. 11.11 crores. 11. Inviting attention of the Court towards the minutes of the meeting held on 15.01.2018 (Annex. R/1 filed with the reply), learned Senior counsel argued that the possession of the unit was been taken over on 12.01.2018 and therefore, charging of interest for the period between taking possession and confirmation of sale, was illegal and contrary to the Corporation's norms. 11. Inviting attention of the Court towards the minutes of the meeting held on 15.01.2018 (Annex. R/1 filed with the reply), learned Senior counsel argued that the possession of the unit was been taken over on 12.01.2018 and therefore, charging of interest for the period between taking possession and confirmation of sale, was illegal and contrary to the Corporation's norms. He argued that once RFC takes over possession of the assets of the unit, it cannot charge any interest in the borrower's account. 12. It was also argued that RFC erred in not settling the company's accounts at the principal amount due, whereas many other accounts had been settled at much lower amounts than the principal amounts. 13. Mr. Rakesh Sinha, learned counsel for RFC submitted that numerous opportunities were granted to the company for clearing its dues or to settle the account, but it failed to avail of those chances and instead, adopted a stubborn attitude and insisted that the entire penal interest be waived and its account be settled at such terms, which were beyond the norms of the Corporation. He also asserted that all the cases had been settled by the Corporation in accordance with the norms and guidelines issued from time to time, while maintaining that cases of different borrowers cannot be compared, as has been attempted by the company. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. This court does not find any irregularity, warranting interference, so far as the appellant's case regarding not settling its account or taking possession of the unit is concerned. The court is of opinion that the learned single judge cannot be faulted in non-suiting the appellant in light of earlier decision of its writ petition and appeal. A perusal of facts reveals that the auction notice was published in daily newspaper of Rajasthan as well as of Delhi. It was given wide circulation. It is a different aspect that no bidder turned up on the first date, viz., 28.03.2013; only two bidders came during second auction held on 25.04.2013 (when the fifth respondent offered closed bid of Rs. 8 crores); and thereafter only one bidder (respondent No. 5) on 23.05.2013, and offered a sum of Rs. 8.21 crores. 16. It is a different aspect that no bidder turned up on the first date, viz., 28.03.2013; only two bidders came during second auction held on 25.04.2013 (when the fifth respondent offered closed bid of Rs. 8 crores); and thereafter only one bidder (respondent No. 5) on 23.05.2013, and offered a sum of Rs. 8.21 crores. 16. After the filing of the writ petition, though negotiations took place with the fifth respondent, yet the sale was not confirmed, as directed by this Court. 17. A perusal of the record, produced by the RFC, reveals that in furtherance of the interim order passed by this Court, negotiations took place on 14.06.2013 and the fifth respondent increased its bid to Rs. 11.11 crores. The bid was not finalized in view of this court's interim order and it was ultimately finalized by the Head Office Level Negotiation cum Sale Committee on 15.01.2018. 18. It will not be out of place to reproduce the minutes of the meeting of the Head Office Level Committee, dated 15.01.2018, vide which they have confirmed the sale:- "Minutes of the Meeting held on 15.01.2018 in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur in writ petition No. SBCWP 3142/2013 to finalize the bid in case of M/s. Jain Bandhu Sneh Resorts (P.) Ltd., NH-8, Udaipur-Ahmedabad Road, Udaipur. Earlier the unit was put on auction in Sale-cum-Negotiation Committee on 23.05.2013 wherein a bid of Rs. 8.21 crore was received from M/s. Sun on Mount Hotels P. Ltd., Flat No. 3, New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The bid received was submitted before the Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur and in compliance of Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur order dated 28.05.2013 the bidder was called for negotiation before the Sale-cum-Negotiation Committee dated 04.06.2013 and after negotiations the bidder increased his bid from Rs. 8.21 crore to Rs. 11.11 crore. As per the auction sheet, the Committee informed to the bidder that the auction proceedings shall be finalized according to decision of Hon'ble High Court. The said proceedings were placed before the Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur through our Advocate who is contesting the case on behalf of the Corporation. This matter was listed several times before the court for confirmation and finalization of auction. The said proceedings were placed before the Hon'ble High Court, Jodhpur through our Advocate who is contesting the case on behalf of the Corporation. This matter was listed several times before the court for confirmation and finalization of auction. Finally after much persuasion for last more than 4 years, the case was listed before the Hon'ble High Court on 11.01.2018 the court has ordered as follows: 'This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the advertisement/auction notice dated 16.03.2013 (Annex-5), whereby the Rajasthan Finance Corporation had proposed to auction the property of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 24.05.2013 while taking into consideration the fact that the auction proceedings has already been completed has restrained the RFC to finalize the auction. On many occasions, the petitioner has sought time to get the matter resolved through negotiation and shown his eagerness to deposit all the dues of the RFC. On 20.12.2017, 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. It is also submitted that some time be granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to arrange the finances to clear the dues. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 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. Having considered the above facts situation, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-Firm is not serious in settlement of the dispute with the RFC, hence the stay petition filed along with the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that no stay order is operating in this writ petition.' The opinion of our panel Advocate, Dr. Pratishtha Dave has also been obtained wherein she has opined that:- 'RFC is free to proceed further to finalize the auction as per in accordance with law as the stay petition has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Court.' The Market Realizable Value of the fixed assets and outstanding as reported below were also appraised to the Committee:-(1) MRV as on 16.11.2012 (a) Land:- Rs. 967,456 lacs (b) Building:- Rs. 470,000 lacs (c) P&M, MFA and F&F:- Rs. 30,000 lacs (Total - Rs. 1467.45 lacs) (Rs. 967,456 lacs (b) Building:- Rs. 470,000 lacs (c) P&M, MFA and F&F:- Rs. 30,000 lacs (Total - Rs. 1467.45 lacs) (Rs. In lacs) Outstanding balance As on date of possession As on 12.01.2018 Principal 241.54 241.54 Interest 305.01 305.01 Simple Interest on possession period 0.00 461.69 Other Money 0.08 40.66 Total: 546.63 1048.90 Looking to the order of the Hon'ble High Court as well as the opinion of our Advocate, the complete facts were placed before the Sale-cum-Negotiation Committee on 15.01.2018 in the Board Room of the Corporation under the Chairmanship of Executive Director and after detailed discussions, considering the facts and looking to the interest of the Corporation, it has been decided that the bid received of Rs. 11.11 crore may be considered and the sale may be approved in favour of M/s. Sun on Mount Hotels P. Ltd., Flat No. 3, New Market, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi on standard terms & conditions as stipulated in the auction proceedings and interest as per prevailing rate of interest at the time of auction. The purchaser party may be informed accordingly." 19. A reading of the above minutes makes it abundantly clear that RFC confirmed the sale reckoning the MRV as on 16.11.2012 and had not even asked the successful bidder to increase his bid, given the fact that a period of five years had since elapsed. The successful bidder was not even called upon to pay the interest for the period interregnum (14.06.2013 to 15.01.2018). 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Head Office Level Committee mechanically confirmed the sale in favour of the fifth respondent, ignoring the attendant factors which were required to be considered, which has caused loss to the appellant as the Corporation has not factored in the escalation, which might have taken place during this period. 21. In this view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the confirmation of sale made by the respondent Corporation in favour of the fifth respondent was neither in accordance with law law nor in commercial expediency. Surely, in its capacity as custodian of its debtor's property, the RFC ought to have, in the normal course of its business sought a fresh valuation of the properties, in 2018, when the court required that negotiations with the successful bidder. Surely, in its capacity as custodian of its debtor's property, the RFC ought to have, in the normal course of its business sought a fresh valuation of the properties, in 2018, when the court required that negotiations with the successful bidder. This was essential, given that a considerable period (5 years) had elapsed between the date of auction, and the date of the final judgment of the Single Judge. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the sale confirmed in favour of the fifth respondent is hereby set aside. The RFC is hereby directed to auction the assets of the appellant afresh, in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.