ORDER : (Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) : 1.1. Further affidavit filed by the respondent – Gujarat State Financial Corporation dated 06.08.2024 tendered by Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, is taken on record. 1.2. Draft Amendment dated 19.12.2023 is taken on record. The same is allowed and directed to be carried-out forthwith. 2. Heard Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein has challenged the action of the respondent of initiating the recovery of an amount of Rs.62,53,033/- vide notice/communication/orders dated 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023, duly produced at Annexure-A (collectively). It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid action undertaken by the respondent is against the settled principles of natural justice. 4.1. Briefly stated that, it is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner had purchased the Industrial Unit/Plot on 25.03.1997 under an auction conducted by the respondent – Corporation. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.25,24,932/- towards the full sale consideration. 4.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that one of the directors of the petitioner- M/s. Ashwin Wire Limited, Shri Yadsingh N. Rajput had resigned and had shown his willingness to persuade the respondent – Corporation to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. 4.3. The respondent herein on 13.03.1997 issued a letter for change of name of the purchaser- petitioner herein. The petitioner herein preferred a petition being Special civil Application No. 2090 of 1999 against the respondent, restraining them from taking any coercive measures against the petitioner, towards recovery of any outstanding amount, which came to be disposed of, by order dated 07.12.1999. 4.4. It is further the case of the petitioner that, one blank cheque dated 20.03.2000 came to be issued by the petitioner to the respondent confirming the outstanding amount payable to the respondent and on depositing the said cheque by the respondent, No Due Certificate shall be issued to the petitioner and also the sale deed shall also be executed in favour of the petitioner. 4.5. The said cheque is not deposited by the respondent Corporation. On 05.01.2000, the respondent issued the certificate with respect to possession of the shed/property. 4.6. 4.5. The said cheque is not deposited by the respondent Corporation. On 05.01.2000, the respondent issued the certificate with respect to possession of the shed/property. 4.6. The writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 2546 of 2001 came to be filed by the petitioner seeking directions against the respondent for execution of the sale deed. On 15.03.2001, the accounts with respect to the outstanding dues payable by the petitioner came to be given by the respondent. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 10.02.2004, petition being Special Civil Application No. 2546 of 2001 came to be withdrawn by the petitioner, in view of the pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner, with a liberty to file a fresh petition seeking direction against the respondent, for execution of the sale deed after the criminal case is over. 4.7. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 26.07.2002, a demand draft for an amount of Rs.33,468/- came to be issued by the petitioner, as outstanding dues and the same came to be accepted by the respondent. That the accounts between the petitioner and the respondent came to be settled way back in the year 2002. However, the respondent was not executing the sale deed and no process was initiated by the respondent, despite clearance of all outstanding dues by the petitioner. 4.8. On 25.08.2014, the respondent – Corporation issued a letter regarding execution of the sale deed, upon payment of the alleged outstanding dues payable by the petitioner. The petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent- GSFC to issue No Due Certificate, since all the accounts stood settled by depositing an amount of Rs.33,468/-. On 23.02.2016, the respondent had given the account details alleging that an amount of Rs.61,992/- remained outstanding. On 09.08.2016, the criminal case against the petitioner came to be disposed of and petitioner - Shri Ashwinbhai Shah was exonerated. 4.9. It is further the case of the petitioner that, immediately, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 19822 of 2017 seeking a direction against the respondent for execution of the sale deed. The said petition came to be withdrawn, with a liberty to file a fresh petition, upon conclusion of the criminal case against the petitioner. 4.10. 4.9. It is further the case of the petitioner that, immediately, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 19822 of 2017 seeking a direction against the respondent for execution of the sale deed. The said petition came to be withdrawn, with a liberty to file a fresh petition, upon conclusion of the criminal case against the petitioner. 4.10. A Suit came to be filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein seeking directions for execution of the sale deed being Civil Suit No. 65 of 2021. 4.11. The petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court upon a notice issued by the respondent – GSFC on 13.02.2023 raising an exorbitant amount of Rs.62,53,033/- as outstanding dues payable by the petitioner, without any reason and justification, though, the entire amount came to be settled between the petitioner and the respondent – GSFC way back in the year 2002, upon the clearance of the D.D. for an amount of Rs.33,468/-. The aforesaid has given rise to file the present petition and the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (B) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus, a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the initiation of recovery for an amount of Rs. 62,53,033/- from the petitioner vide notice/communication/order dated 21.2.2023 (Annexure-A) and 22.9.2023 (Annexure-A) is illegal, arbitrary and void and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to hold and declare that the total outstanding amount payable by the petitioner towards the Respondent Gujarat State Financial Corporation has been paid and no amount is further due and payable to the said Corporation and the Gujarat State Financial Corporation may be directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and enforcement of the notice/communication/order dated 21.2.2023 (Annexure-A) and 22.9.2023 (Annexure-A) For recovery of an amount of Rs.62,53,033/- from the petitioner towards the alleged due and outstanding to the Respondent Gujarat State Financial Corporation in the interest of justice and fitness of things. (D) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other or further order or relief/s in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5.1. Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner has settled the account upon the payment of the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.33,468/- as back as in the year 2002 and it is not now open for the respondent authority to issue the impugned order/communication dated 21.02.2023 claiming outstanding amount/dues as on 31.03.2022 to the tune of Rs.39,29,101/- 5.2. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate submits that the said action undertaken by the respondent authority is required to be deprecated and the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted that the impugned order is also violative of cardinal principles of natural justice and on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. 6.1. Per contra, Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent - GSFC, at the outset, raises the preliminary objection that the present petition is not maintainable and the present petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material fact, non-joinder of the necessary party and the petition is being filed in violation of the orders passed by this Court from time to time. 6.2. It is submitted that there are also disputed questions of facts and the petitioner herein has already filed a Suit being Special Civil Suit No.65 of 2021, which is pending adjudication before the Principal Civil Judge, Mahemadabad. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has prayed for the same reliefs. Reliance is placed on Page-113, para-18 of the prayers as prayed for in the said suit, wherein, the petitioner has prayed for a direction that the petitioner is not required to pay any further amount to the respondent herein and that the sale deed be directed to be registered between the parties. 6.3. Placing reliance on the affidavit in reply, which is duly filed by the respondent at page-96, it is submitted that, it is denied that the respondents have issued notice on 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023 demanding Rs.62.53 lac. It is submitted that the letter/communication dated 21.02.2023 is in response to the letter and representation of the petitioner, asking for outstanding dues in its account. It is submitted that the letter/communication dated 21.02.2023 is in response to the letter and representation of the petitioner, asking for outstanding dues in its account. It is submitted that, as per the said communication, the outstanding dues as on 31.03.2022 is to the tune of Rs.39.28 lac. 6.4. It is submitted that the communication dated 22.09.2023 is with respect to the demand of the petitioner for execution of the sale deed, whereby, the respondent has stated that the sale deed can be executed after full and final payment, interest, penalty and expenses and after issuance of No Due Certificate (NDC) by the respondent – GSFC in compliance with the directives of the Court. 6.5. It is submitted that the petitioner has relied on a communication dated 09.02.2021 of the Corporation, which is misplaced. It is submitted that, there is no communication from the Corporation, which states that the dues are only to the tune of Rs.33,468/- as stated by the petitioner. The respondent Corporation has clearly mentioned in the year 2016 that there dues are to the tune of Rs.11,10,475/-, and the same has escalated to Rs.29.28 lac. 6.6. It is submitted that the petitioner herein had already approached the Civil Court, not only for execution of the sale deed for the same property, but had also raised the dispute before the Civil Court with regard to the calculation of the amount due. The said Suit is pending before the competent Civil Court. 6.7. It is submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and Mr. Yad Singh is also still pending and civil and criminal litigations are going-on between the parties, and therefore, the respondent – Corporation is not in a position to accede to the request of the present petitioner. 6.8. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is well aware about the disputes with Mr. Yad Singh. It is submitted that in Special Civil Application No. 19822 of 2017, the order was required to be passed, because Mr. Yad Singh had preferred Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 to join as party in the said petition and had stated that the criminal proceedings was pending at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that, Mr. Yad Singh is not a party to the petition. 7. Mr. Yad Singh had preferred Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 to join as party in the said petition and had stated that the criminal proceedings was pending at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that, Mr. Yad Singh is not a party to the petition. 7. Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, reiterates the submissions advanced at the time of earlier hearing and submitted that the impugned notice/communication/order dated 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023 (Annexure-A) are required to be quashed and set aside. 8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the challenge is with respect to the impugned notice/communication/order dated 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023 (Annexure-A). Upon perusal of the aforesaid, it appears that the said communication is in respect to the communication issued by the petitioner dated 10.01.2023 and representations made to the office of the respondent – Corporation dated 12.01.2023 and 06.01.2023 and in view thereof, the respondent Corporation has communicated to the petitioner herein with respect to the outstanding dues. Further on perusal of the communication dated 22.09.2023, it emerges that the respondent – Corporation had explained with regard to the pendency of the proceedings between the respective parties and had concluded as under: “Accordingly, sale deed shall be executed after receipt of full and final payment with interest, penalty & expenses till the date of payment and after issuance of No Due Certificate (NDC), and in compliance with the court directives.” 9. On bare perusal of the aforesaid communication, it emerges that the aforesaid are in the form of the communications, which are replied to by the respondent herein, pursuant to the petitioner’s letter. 10. The contentions raised by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in the present petition that, the impugned communication dated 21.02.2023 and 22.09.2023 are in the form of recovery order, are negated. Further, on perusal of the Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001, which is duly produced at Page- 104, Annexure-B, the said Civil Suit is instituted by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein on 21.06.2021. Further, on perusal of the Civil Suit No. 65 of 2001, which is duly produced at Page- 104, Annexure-B, the said Civil Suit is instituted by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein on 21.06.2021. It is apposite to produce the prayer clause in the said Suit, Para-18 (pg.113), which reads thus: “(A) The land situated on the outskirt of the Village Devki-Vansol, Taluka Mahemdavad, District Kheda bearing Block No.492, 493 paiki, admeasuring 4249 sq.m. having old survey No.342, 343, share No.2-A- paiki and the property therein including the building is under the ownership, possession and occupancy of us the plaintiff. Description of the same is provided in para-1 of the plaint. As all the amount related to the said property have been paid by us the plaintiff, it is prayed to hold that, no amount is due to be paid by us the plaintiff and to pass an order and decree in favor of us the plaintiff and against the respondent that, the respondent herein or his subordinate officer shall execute a Registered Sale Deed of the said property in favor of us the plaintiff. If the respondent defaults in doing so, it is prayed to pass an order and decree in favor of us the plaintiff and against the respondent that, a Commissioner shall be appointed through the Hon’ble Court and the Commissioner shall execute a Sale Deed of the said property in favor of us the plaintiff at the cost of the respondent. (B) The land situated at the outskirt of the Village Devki- Vansol, Taluka Mahemdavad, District Kheda bearing Block No.492, 493 paiki, admeasuring 4249 sq.m. having old survey No.342, 343, share No.2-A- paiki and the property therein including the building is under the ownership, possession and occupancy of us the plaintiff. Description of the same is provided in para-1 of the plaint. It is prayed to pass a Permanent Injunction in favor of us the plaintiff and against the respondent that, no hindrance or obstacle in any manner shall be made in the direct possession and occupancy of us the plaintiff in the said land by the respondent or by their subordinate officer nor shall they take away the possession of the said property from us the plaintiff. (C) It is prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may grant any relief that it deems fit, considering the facts of the Suit. (C) It is prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may grant any relief that it deems fit, considering the facts of the Suit. (D) It is prayed to get all the cost of this suit from the respondent.” 11. Upon perusal of the same, it emerges that the petitioner herein has also prayed that the petitioner is not required to pay any further amount and the respondent be directed to enter into the sale deed. Upon perusal of the aforesaid, it reveals that the petitioner has already availed the remedy by preferring a Civil Suit, which is pending before the competent Court, as also the impugned communications are not in the nature of an order, whereby, any recovery is sought for by the respondent-Corporation. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the present Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.