ORDER : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ankur Y. Oza, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are erstwhile Directors of M/s. Dolvan Bio-Tech Ltd., a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said company was doing business at Village : Dolvan, Taluka : Vyara, Dist. Surat. The said business was wound-up and name of the said company was struck off from the record of the Registrar of Companies. 2.1 The respondent herein provided total financial assistance of Rs.29.88 lakhs against the sanctioned of Rs.30.15 lakhs to the said company through sanctioned letter dated 10.7.1996 wherein in the said loan transactions the land and building of the Company was hypothecated and the petitioners being Directors and one Chunilal Patel being guarantor offered their residential dwelling houses as collateral security and both the residential properties were mortgaged on the same mortgaged deed. Copy of the loan agreement dated 25.10.1996 alongwith a memorandum of entry for creation of equitable mortgage of collateral security dated 25.10.1996 are duly produced at Annexure-C. 2.2 The respondent took possession of the said company under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 on 16.12.2004 which is confirmed by letter dated 9.8.2007 of the Dy. General Manager of the respondent. The respondent being secured creditor took possession of the said company on 16.12.2004. Before the respondent took possession of the assets of the said company the Mamlatdar, Vyara passed the order dated 27.11.1997 under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to restore the possession of the land in the State Government for the breach of Section 63 of the Act. 2.3 The proceedings with respect to the aforesaid are pending before the District Court at Vyara wherein the respondent herein has preferred Civil Misc. Application No.86 of 2004 under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the possession of the residential dwelling of the guarantor Shri Chunilal Patel was handed over by the respondent. It is stated that vide Circular No.GSFC/REC.CO.ORDI/31 dated 7.2.2009 the respondent introduced a policy to release collateral security of dwelling nature offered by third party of the borrower unit. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that the possession of the residential dwelling of the guarantor Shri Chunilal Patel was handed over by the respondent. It is stated that vide Circular No.GSFC/REC.CO.ORDI/31 dated 7.2.2009 the respondent introduced a policy to release collateral security of dwelling nature offered by third party of the borrower unit. It is also stated that the respondent herein by Circular dated 19.11.2016 is bound to release the dwelling house offered as collateral security by the petitioner. 2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioners herein are willing to pay the market value as determined under the “Eligibility” or the appraisal value whichever is lower plus 25% of the difference between the market value and the appraisal value. The petitioners accordingly made application dated 31.7.2021 and 7.8.2021 to the respondent, inter alia seeking for releasing of their residential dwelling house from the charge of the respondent as per prevalent norms of the respondents as well as on humanitarian grounds. Alongwith the said application the petitioners paid valuation fee of Rs.8,260/- to the respondent which was received and acknowleged by the respondent vide receipt No.18746 dated 7.8.2021 issued by the Dy. Manager (I/c) of the respondent. The said applications are on record at Annexure-H. 2.6 The respondent herein refused to accept the application of the petitioners, as referred above, by impugned communication dated 30.6.2022 which is duly produced at Annexure-A. The petitioners herein sent a letter on 9.9.2023 requesting to reconsider the decision by taking into consideration that the first petitioner is suffering from carcinoma of prostate and undergoing treatment since last about two years and the petitioners herein are willing to pay the amount for the residential dwelling as per the Circular dated 19.11.2016. The aforesaid request also came to be declined by the respondent herein by communication dated 9.9.2023. 3. The aforesaid request also came to be declined by the respondent herein by communication dated 9.9.2023. 3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :- “(a) Issue appropriate Writ, direction or order to quash and set aside the decisions arrived at by the respondent vide letter dated 30/06/2022 followed by the letter dated 16/10/2023; (Annx.'A’) (b) Issue appropriate Writ, direction or order to the respondent to decide afresh the case of the petitioners for release of their residential dwelling house in accordance with the circulars dated 07/02/2009, 22/11/2010, 05/03/2011, 26/09/201l and 19/11/2016 (Annex ‘G’) issúed by the respondent regarding the policy of special scheme for release of residential dwelling given to the corporation as collateral security and by taking in to consideration the case of Chunilal Nathubhai Patel as well as other cases where collateral securities were released; (c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition direct the respondent to decide the case of the petitioners for release of collateral security in accordance with the circulars dated 07/02/2009, 22/11/2010, 05/03/2011, 26/09/2011 and 19/11/2016 (Annex ‘G’) issued by the respondent regarding the policy to release the residential dweling given to the corporation as collateral security; (d) Pass any other appropriate order that may deem just and proper;” 4. Mr. Ankur Y. Oza, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the petitioners herein are the Directors of the erstwhile Company and having mortgaged their residential property as a collateral security to the respondent herein. It is submitted that the petitioners herein approached the respondent authority twice to be extended the benefit of the Circular dated 19.11.2016, however by the impugned communications dated 30.6.2022 and 16.10.2023 the petitioner’s application for the aforesaid request came to be declined by the respondent authority. 4.1 It is submitted that the petitioners herein undertake to comply with all the conditions of the said Circular dated 19.11.2016. It is submitted that in light of the aforesaid the petitioners’ application be considered in terms of the existing policy of 2016. 5. Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent authority relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent herein and submitted that the respondent herein is ready to reconsider the request of the petitioner and release the property i.e. house bearing Survey No.262/paiki, plot No.38 admeasuring 1199.47 sq.ft. built-up area 1327.50 sq.ft. 5. Mr. A.S. Asthavadi, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent authority relied on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent herein and submitted that the respondent herein is ready to reconsider the request of the petitioner and release the property i.e. house bearing Survey No.262/paiki, plot No.38 admeasuring 1199.47 sq.ft. built-up area 1327.50 sq.ft. situated at Abhiramnagar, Taluka : Bardoli, Dist. Surat. 5.1 It is submitted that the petitioners herein would be required to submit latest valuation report of the property by the Government approved valuer at his own cost. It is submitted that the amount received by the Corporation shall not be adjusted the amount to be calculated towards One Time Settlement scheme of the respondent Corporation. 5.2 It is submitted that the aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights of the respondent in the pending and future litigation for recovery of the loan amount. 5.3 It is submitted that the respondent herein has approached the competent District Court by preferring Civil Misc. Application No.86 of 2004 which is pending determination. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the orders passed by the respondent authority which are impugned dated 30.06.2022 and 16.10.2023 and considering the reply filed by the respondent authority in the present petition wherein the respondent Corporation in paragraphs 5 to 8 have stated that without prejudice to the right of the GSFC in pending litigation, considering the Circular of the GSFC dated 19.11.2016 regarding modified Scheme of releasing residential unit given to the respondent Corporation as collateral security, the Corporation is ready to reconsider the request of the petitioner to release the subject property, as referred above. Further the petitioner is required to obtain latest valuation of the property by the Government Approved Valuer at his own cost and the same would not be adjusted towards the amount i.e. to be calculated towards One Time Settlement Scheme of the Corporation. 6.1 It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 5 to 8 of the reply which read thus :- “5. 6.1 It is apposite to refer to paragraphs 5 to 8 of the reply which read thus :- “5. It is submitted that however, without prejudice to the right of GSFC in pending litigation, considering the circular of the GSFC dated 19.11.2016 regarding modified scheme of releasing residential dwelling given to respondent Corporation as collateral security, corporation is ready to reconsider request of the petitioner to release the property i.e. house at S.No. 262/P, Plot No.38 land adm 1199.47 sq.fts, built up area 1327.50 sq mtrs situated at Abhiramnagar Shashtri Road, Bardoli Ta: Bardoli Dist: Surat. 6. It is submitted that petitioner shall required to obtain latest valuation of the property by Government approved valuer at his own cost. 7. It is submitted that the amount received by the corporation shall not be adjusted towards amount to be calculated towards One Time Settlement Scheme of Corporation. 8. It is submitted that consideration of the request of the petitioner shall be without prejudice to the rights of the GSFC in pending and future litigation to get recovery from the loanee unit and its directors and sureties.” 7. This Court has perused the representations filed by the petitioner herein dated 31.7.2021 and 7.8.2021 which are duly produced at pages-112 to 114 wherein the said representations do not appear to have been made seeking the benefit of 2016 policy. In view thereof, if the petitioner herein were to file fresh application seeking the benefit of Circular dated 19.11.2016, the respondent authority to consider the same in terms of the said Circular in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.