ORDER : The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “… issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in canceling the sale of M/s. Vijay Silk Mills, KDA, Kattedan, Hyderabad, in favour of the petitioner in proceedings No.AFC/RR.(E)/2006-2007/869, dated 31.10.2006, as arbitrary, illegal and set aside the same and direct the respondent Corporation to abide by the confirmation of sale in Ref.No.AFC/AMC/BIFR/RSR/AGM/ 2003-2004, dated 31.10.2006, and further direct the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and deliver possession and execute and register the necessary documents after disposal of W.P.No.602 of 2003, and grant such relief…..” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent Corporation has issued publication in news paper on 30.08.2003 inviting sealed tenders for the assets of the M/s.Vijay Silk Mills, Kattedarn, on as is where condition. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner Company has submitted its bid for an amount of Rs.81.56 lakhs. The respondent Company by its letter dated 31.10.2003 has accepted and approved the offer petitioner Company calling for balance payment from the petitioner. Thereafter, on 19-01-2004, the petitioner Company sent a letter to the respondent Corporation informing about the pendency of W.P. No.602 of 2003 filed by Union Bank of India seeking to restrain the State Financial Corporation from seizing the unit of M/s.Vijay Silk Mills on the ground that the Union of India has attached the unit by order dated 29.06.1997 for recovery of dues wherein an interim order dated 08.01.2003 has also been passed by this Hon’ble Court. After filing of the vacate stay petition, the interim stay was vacated and sale of unit was permitted, however, subject to the result of the pending writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.1893 of 2003 was filed wherein vide order dated 10.11.2003 status quo was granted. It is the specific case of the petitioner that by suppressing all the above facts, the respondent Corporation has conducted auction proceedings. In spite of the same, the petitioner Company has waited all these years for completion of the cases filed by the Union Bank of India, for taking possession of the unit after payment of balance consideration. It is the specific case of the petitioner that by suppressing all the above facts, the respondent Corporation has conducted auction proceedings. In spite of the same, the petitioner Company has waited all these years for completion of the cases filed by the Union Bank of India, for taking possession of the unit after payment of balance consideration. It is stated that the petitioner was always willing and ready to pay the sale consideration but for the letter of the Corporation, dated 02.02.2004, asking the petitioner not to pay the balance sale consideration till favourble orders are received from the High Court in the pending Writ Appeal. However, the petitioner Company received letter dated 31.10.2006 canceling the sale in favour of the petitioner and a cheque for Rs.3.6 lakhs was enclosed to the said letter, which amount was paid by the petitioner Company towards EMD. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Corporation stating that as per the sale confirmation letter dated 31.10.2003, the petitioner has to pay the total sale consideration of Rs.81.56 lakhs. As per the terms of the tender document, the petitioner has to pay Rs.6.50 lakhs within 50 days from the date of sale confirmation letter dated 31.10.2003 and the balance sale consideration of Rs.75.06 lakhs within 90 days from the date of sale confirmation letter dated 31.10.2003. It is further contended that the petitioner failed to comply with the above sale conditions and did not pay the balance sale consideration. Except the EMD amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs, no other amounts were paid by the petitioner towards the balance sale consideration. In such circumstances, the impugned cancellation order was issued. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hamsa Raj, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has participated in the tender notification issued by the respondent in the newspaper, dated 30.08.2003. Thereafter, the subject property was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.81.56 lakhs. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has participated in the tender notification issued by the respondent in the newspaper, dated 30.08.2003. Thereafter, the subject property was knocked down in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.81.56 lakhs. That the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs towards EMD, and thereafter, the Corporation vide letter, dated 31.10.2003, has confirmed the sale directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6.50 lakhs, including the EMD of Rs.3.60 lakhs already paid, within a period of 50 days from the date of the confirmation letter dated 31.10.2003 and to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.75.06 lakhs within 90 days from the date of the said letter. Thereafter, when the petitioner has written a letter, dated 18.12.2003, to the Corporation seeking their advice and guidance as to how the payment of Rs.2.90 lakhs should be made, the Corporation vide letter, dated 03.01.2004, has informed the petitioner that the time limit for payment of the balance amount of Rs.2.90 lakhs was extended to 29.01.2004 instead of 19.12.2003. It is stated that when the petitioner came to know about the pendency of some cases in respect of the subject property in this Hon’ble Court, it has written a letter to the respondent seeking information about the said litigation, and the respondent vide letter, dated 21.02.2004, has informed the petitioner as under: “With reference to the above, we inform that our Management has agreed to consider extension of time for payment of balance sale consideration, payable within 15-days from the date of intimation from the Corporation as to the favourable orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Court with regard to the above sale. Please note that the sale has been processed and confirmed as per the permission previously granted by the Hon'ble High Court, which has been subsequently ordered for status-quo resulting in delay for accepting the balance sale consideration and handing over of the property.” Thereafter, the Corporation informed the petitioner vide letter, dated 31.10.2006, about the cancellation of the sale and also refunding of EMD amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs vide cheque No.474274, dated 10.10.2006, of Syndicate Bank, Abids Branch. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. While reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has contended that the petitioner has no vested right to question the cancellation of the sale as the petitioner failed to adhere to the conditions imposed by the Corporation. That the petitioner failed to pay the balance sale consideration, and therefore the Corporation was constrained to cancel the sale, which was earlier confirmed by the Corporation. That there is no need to put the petitioner on notice as the petitioner failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the confirmation of sale. That the petitioner having failed to pay the balance sale consideration, cannot now question the cancellation of the sale. That the petitioner till date has neither paid the first instalment of Rs.2.90 lakhs nor the second instalment of Rs.75.06 lakhs, except paying the EMD amount of Rs3.60 lakhs. The petitioner has not bothered to adhere to the terms of the contract and therefore the Corporation has rightly cancelled the sale. 7. An implead petition in I.A. No.2 of 2016 has been filed by a third party claiming to be one of the partners of the Firm, whose loan account has become bad, for which, the property of the said firm (the subject property of the present writ petition) was put to auction and the petitioner became the successful bidder. It is stated that the implead petitioner is a proper, necessary and an interested party to the pending writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the implead petitioner has stated that the implead petitioner has negotiated with the respondent-Corporation under ONE TIME SETTLEMNT SCHEME (OTS) and is willing to pay the negotiated amounts to the Corporation. That the writ petitioner has no vested right in the property as it has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the sale transaction and failed to pay even the first instalment and therefore the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has vehemently opposed the implead petition filed by the Firm stating that the respondent-Corporation in collusion with the implead petitioner is trying to knock away the property which is now valued at more than Rs.20 crores under the guise of extending the OTS to the implead petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has vehemently opposed the implead petition filed by the Firm stating that the respondent-Corporation in collusion with the implead petitioner is trying to knock away the property which is now valued at more than Rs.20 crores under the guise of extending the OTS to the implead petitioner. That the writ petitioner is willing to pay an amount of Rs.5 crores in respect of the subject property even now and that the respondent Corporation cannot be allowed to negotiate with the implead petitioner who is admittedly a defaulter and is trying to knock away the auctioned property by paying Rs.1 crore only. That the settlement amount arrived by the implead petitioner with the Corporation under OTS cannot be allowed to proceed, once the property has been put to auction. That the respondent Corporation being the public enterprise cannot act contrary to the public interest and extend the OTS to the implead petitioner, at this point of time, the loan having become bad and the implead petitioner declared as a defaulter. The Corporation should endeavor to get the maximum price, but instead, the Corporation is trying to extend the OTS to the implead petitioner for meager amount of Rs.1 crore. If the offer made by the Implead petitioner is accepted, the implead petitioner will knock away the valuable property worth more than Rs.20 crores for Rs.1 crore only. Therefore, the Corporation cannot be allowed to act against the public interest, and hence prayed this Court to dismiss the implead petition and to allow the Writ Petition. The Writ Petitioner has offered to pay an amount of Rs.5 crores to the Corporation for confirming the sale in its favour. 10. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has stated that the respondent Corporation has not finalized any deal with any person, much less, the Implead Petitioner. While declining the offer made by the writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the Corporation has every right to cancel the tender document. It is stated that the total amount due from the implead petitioner along with interest is approximately Rs.1214.34 lakhs, as on 31.01.2022. While declining the offer made by the writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the Corporation has every right to cancel the tender document. It is stated that the total amount due from the implead petitioner along with interest is approximately Rs.1214.34 lakhs, as on 31.01.2022. Therefore, the question of the Corporation accepting the offer of either the Writ Petitioner or the Implead petitioner for any less amount does not arise and the Corporation will take necessary steps for recovering the total due amounts only by auctioning the subject property through an open, transparent and bidding process by calling for tenders after adequate publicity. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on Manilal Mohanlal Shah and others vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmaed and others, 1954 AIR 349 in support of his contention that non-payment of the price on the part of the defaulting purchaser renders the sale proceedings as a complete nullity. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 11. In view of the rival submissions made by the parties, the only question which this Court needs to address in the present writ petition is as to ‘whether the Corporation was right in canceling the sale and refunding EMD paid by the petitioner or not’? 12. Admittedly, the petitioner has participated in the tender and offered a sum of Rs.81.56 lakhs, which offer was accepted by the Corporation. The Corporation vide letter, dated 31.10.2003, has confirmed the sale directing the petitioner to pay first instalment of Rs.6.50 lakhs including the EMD of Rs.3.60 lakhs i.e.the balance amount of Rs.2.90 lakhs within a period of 50 days from the date of the confirmation letter. The balance amount of Rs.75.06 lakhs was directed to be paid within 90 days from the date of the said confirmation letter. The petitioner instead of paying Rs.2.90 lakhs has written letters to the Corporation seeking the modalities of payment for which it received a reply from the Corporation vide letter, dated 03.01.2004, granting time till 29.01.2004. The petitioner instead of paying the first instalment amount of Rs.2.90 lakhs, vide letter dated 20.01.2004, has refused to pay any amount. The petitioner instead of paying Rs.2.90 lakhs has written letters to the Corporation seeking the modalities of payment for which it received a reply from the Corporation vide letter, dated 03.01.2004, granting time till 29.01.2004. The petitioner instead of paying the first instalment amount of Rs.2.90 lakhs, vide letter dated 20.01.2004, has refused to pay any amount. It is pertinent to extract the contents of the said letter written by the petitioner, which read as under: “However, for the reasons best known to you, your office has issued the sale letter combining both the accounts and asked us to pay Rs.6.50 lakhs (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only) including the said EMD of Rs.3.60 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs sixty thousand only) within 50 days and the balance amount within 90 days from the date of the sale letter, dated 31.10.2003. …… In spite of receipt of this order, you have written a letter asking us to pay an amount of Rs.2.90 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousand only) and the balance on or before 29.01.2004. ….. We are ready with the total money for plant & machinery separately and for the land & building separately as we have bid separately and the EMD is also paid separately, but however because of the pendency of the proceedings we are restrained from making any further amount to you, and any payment shall be made only upon the final decision given by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and after all the legal impediments are cleared.” 13. A perusal of the above letter makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner backed out from paying the balance first instalment of Rs.2.90 lakhs on the ground of pendency of the litigation before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, the Corporation has decided to cancel the sale and refunded the EMD amount vide letter dated 31.10.2006 which is impugned in the present writ petition. Once the petitioner has failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, the petitioner will not get any vested right in the property and he cannot question the cancellation of the sale by the Corporation. In case, the petitioner was still interested in purchasing the property, it could have paid the first instalment under protest and filed a petition in the High Court for depositing the balance amount and for confirmation of sale. In case, the petitioner was still interested in purchasing the property, it could have paid the first instalment under protest and filed a petition in the High Court for depositing the balance amount and for confirmation of sale. But the petitioner did not choose to do so and on the other hand it has simply refused to pay the balance sale consideration as evidenced by the letter, dated 20.01.2004. Therefore, it has to be necessarily inferred that the petitioner has rescinded from the sale transaction on its own volition. The non-payment of the balance sale consideration, for whatever reason, has to render the sale proceedings a complete nullity. Once the petitioner was legally obligated to deposit the balance sale consideration (first instalment) within the time stipulated by the Corporation, the petitioner having failed to do so cannot blame the Corporation for canceling the sale itself. The petitioner having failed to deposit the balance sale consideration cannot claim that the Corporation has no right to cancel the said sale transaction and the contention that it has a vested right cannot be countenanced and is hereby rejected. Non-payment of the balance sale consideration renders the sale transaction itself void, nullity and therefore the question of vesting of any right in the petitioner does not arise. 14. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration, but for the letter of the Corporation dated 02.02.2004, which advised him not to pay the balance sale consideration, it is to be noted that even before the said letter was addressed to the petitioner, the petitioner vide letter dated 20.01.2004 has refused to pay the balance sale consideration to the Corporation. 15. A Division Bench of this Court vide common order dated 04.01.2022 in W.P. Nos.2353 of 2003 and batch has held as under: “In the instant case, what we find is that while Gupta Metallics had paid 15% of the sale price on the date of auction i.e. on 10.01.2003, but did not pay the balance 85% within 30 days from the date of sale. Though it may be contended that the order dated 16.01.2003 passed by BIFR staying the auction sale had come in the meanwhile and it prevented Gupta Metallics from depositing the balance 85%, the fact remains that in W.P.No.2139 of 2003 filed by the State challenging the order dated 16.01.2003, this Court, by order dated 06.02.2003 clarified that any confirmation of sale would be subject to orders of this Court. Therefore, there was no legal impediment for Gupta Metallics to make payment of the balance 85%. Though Gupta Metallics has taken a stand that it had come forward to pay the balance 85%, which was not accepted by the State, the fact remains that the said amount was not deposited by Gupta Metallics. There was no application by Gupta Metallics before this Court seeking a direction to the State to accept the balance 85% of the sale price which would have been subject to outcome of the writ petition. In the absence of the same, we are afraid law will take its own course.” 16. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above referred order is not applicable to the facts of the case, as there was a stay granted by this Court and therefore the petitioner could not deposit the balance amount, but the facts remains that the petitioner, if he was interested, could had filed an application for impleading himself in the pending proceedings before the High Court and taken permission for deposit of the balance sale consideration, but he did not do so. Therefore, the said argument put forth is not correct and the same is rejected. 17. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition warranting any interference of this Court and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 18. However, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haji T.M. Hassan vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1079 wherein it is held as under: "The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the state should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the state and public authorities. This court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the state and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be aboveboard. There transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favourtism or nepotism. Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders." 19. So also, in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, (1993) 2 SCC 279 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as under: “21. The sale by public auction or tender or private negotiation should be bona fide action. First is universally recognised to be the best and most fair method. It is expected to fetch best competitive price and is beyond reproach. Second would be resorted to rarely only if first is an impossibility. Generally tenders would be calling quotation to execute public work or to award contracts etc. And third should always be avoided as it cannot withstand public gaze. It casts reflection on Corporation and its officials and is against social and public interest. In case transfer cannot be effected by public auction and it is necessary to resort to sale by tender it is both fair and necessary to inform the unit holder, if unit has been got valued for purposes or transfer of the estimated value for sale as he is as much interested as the Corporation. Sale of public property by calling tenders escape attention of many an intending participant. Every endeavour should, therefore, be made to give wide publicity and to get the maximum price. Bureaucracy feels that accountability is an impediment to efficient discharge of the duty. Accountability is no more and no less than, the concept of accountability of a private concern to their shareholders. There is a distinction between prying into details of day-to-day administration and of the legitimate actions or resultant consequences thereof. To enthuse efficiency into administration, a balance between accountability and autonomy of action of management in public enterprises should be carefully maintained. Overemphasis on either would impinge upon public efficiency. There is a distinction between prying into details of day-to-day administration and of the legitimate actions or resultant consequences thereof. To enthuse efficiency into administration, a balance between accountability and autonomy of action of management in public enterprises should be carefully maintained. Overemphasis on either would impinge upon public efficiency. But undermining the accountability would give immunity or carte blanche power to deal with the public property or of the debtor at whim or vagary. Whether the public authority acted bona fide and in the best interest as prudent owner in the given facts would do, be gauged from impugned action and attending circumstances. The authority should justify the action assailed on the touchstone of justness, fairness, reasonableness and as a reasonable prudent owner. 22. Keeping these various factors giving rise to conflicting interest the following directions are necessary to be issued to be observed by the Corporation while exercising power under Section 29: Every endeavour should be made, to make the unit viable and be put on working condition. If it becomes unworkable: (1) Sale of a unit should always be made by public auction. (2) Valuation of a unit for purposes of determining adequacy of offer or for determining if bid offered was adequate, should always be intimated to the unit holder to enable him to file objection if any as he is vitally interested in getting the maximum price. (3) If tenders are invited then the highest price on which tender is to be accepted must be intimated to the unit holder. (4)(a) If unit holder is willing to offer the sale price, as the tenderer, then he should be offered same facility and unit should be transferred to him. And the arrears remaining thereafter should be rescheduled to be recovered in instalments with interest after the payment of last instalment fixed under the agreement entered into as a result of tendered amount. (b) If he brings third parties with higher offer it would be tested and may be accepted. (5) Sale by private negotiation should be permitted only in very large concerns where investment runs in very huge amount for which ordinary buyer may not be available or the industry itself may be or such nature that by (sic many) normal buyers may not be available. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. But before taking such steps there should be advertisements not only in daily newspapers but business magazines and papers. (6) Request of the unit holder to release any part of the property on which the concern is not standing of which he is the owner should normally be granted on condition that sale proceeds shall be deposited in loan account.” 20. In view of the above proposition of law, the Corporation being a Government Undertaking should endeavour to see that the best price for the subject property is realized by way of auction or calling for open tenders giving adequate publicity. 21. That insofar as the implead petition is concerned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same in view of the dismissal of the writ petition itself. The implead petitioner may work out his remedies elsewhere. 22. It is stated across the Bar that EMD amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs paid by the petitioner was returned by the Corporation vide Cheque No.474274, but the petitioner has not deposited the same in his account. In view of the above submission, the Corporation is directed to verify the above fact and if it is found that the cheque issued to the petitioner has not been encashed, the Corporation shall issue another cheque refunding the EMD amount of Rs.3.60 lakhs together with interest @ 8% per annum calculated from the date of confirmation of sale till the disposal of the present writ petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 23. With the above observations, the Writ Petition as well as I.A. No.2 of 2016 are hereby dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.