ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri R.Rajendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Md. Ajmal Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the Respondents 1 and 2 in transferring the ownership of the unit of the petitioner to the 3 rd respondent towards a loan amount of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and malafide and consequentially set aside the sale of the unit of the petitioner by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of the 3 rd respondent and direct the respondents Corporation to act in accordance with law and enable the petitioner to repay the loan amount while protecting the unit of the petitioner from being sold to the third parties and grant such other relief…” 3. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The Order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.1110 of 2008 preferred by the Writ Petitioner herein aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2007 in W.P.No.29911 of 1997, relevant paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 are extracted hereunder: “7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in not deciding the writ petition preferred by the appellant on merits and relegating the appellant to civil Court. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents even before us. The learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the averment made in the writ petition that the unit belonging to the appellant has been sold for a paltry amount and in collusion with respondent No.3 by the officers of respondent Nos.1 and 2, was not controverted. The learned Single Judge therefore ought to have appreciated that confirmation of sale if any which took place during the pendency of the petition was subject to outcome of the petition and the petition could not have been dismissed without adjudicating the controversy on merits merely on the ground that no order of stay was granted while admitting the writ petition. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the writ petition on merits expeditiously. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. The Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1 st and 2 nd respondent, paras 4 and 5 are extracted hereunder: “ 4. In reply to averments stated in para No.2 and 3 of the petition, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner herein is a chronic defaulter. It is submitted that the contention that the petitioner that the answering Respondent No.1 herein has conducted a secret sale of the Plant and Machinery of the petitioner to the Respondent No.3 at a throw away price without notice to the Petitioner and that the same is arbitrary and illegal is false and baseless. It is submitted that before Sale of the unit under Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, the unit was seized and Pachanama was also conducted on 19-02-1997. It is further respectfully submitted that before Sale a telegram dated 27-08-1997 was also sent to Petitioner to replace three motors which are missing in the premises and further informed in the same Telegram that the Unit was advertised for Sale and that the offer was under finalization. 5. In reply to para No.4 of the Writ Petition under counter, it is true that as the Petitioner has committed default in repayment of the agreed loan amount, the unit was seized by the answering Respondent in the year 1996 and that upon the representation of the Petitioner dated 10-10-1996, requesting the answering Respondent to be given very last chance, the answering Respondent has sympathetically considered the representation made by the Petitioner and had lifted the seizure on 28-10-1996. However as the Petitioner did not honour its own commitment, the unit was again seized on 19-02-1997 by the answering Respondent. It is respectfully submitted that even after seizure of the unit, the Petitioner failed to come forward with any proposal either for lifting of the seizure or for closure of the loan account and having regard to the same, the answering Respondent had issued sale advertisement in news papers in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 07-06-1997. It is respectfully submitted that even after seizure of the unit, the Petitioner failed to come forward with any proposal either for lifting of the seizure or for closure of the loan account and having regard to the same, the answering Respondent had issued sale advertisement in news papers in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 07-06-1997. It is submitted that pursuant to the paper advertisement the answering Respondent has received an offer from Sri M.D. Anwar Ali for a sum of Rs. 4.75 lakhs and upon negotiation the lone tenderer had enhanced his offer to Rs.5.35 lakhs. It is submitted that since the said offer compared favorably and covered 92% of the evaluation of the assets made by the answering Respondent Corporation, the answering Respondent Corporation has issued a sale letter in favour of the purchaser on 23-9-1997 and the Possession of the assets was also handed over to the purchaser and a registered sale deed vide document No. 2379 of 2000 was executed in favour of the Respondent No.3 on 07.04.2000. It is submitted that there is no truth or substance in the averments sought to be made by the Petitioner that the answering Respondent Corporation had colluded with the third Respondent and sold the unit in its favour. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner having failed to respond to the telegram and the seizure of the unit cannot now claim any relief before Hon'ble Court on the pretext of lack of knowledge of the sale at the relevant time. It is submitted that the unit was seized on 19-02-1997 and the sale letter was issued on 23-09-1997 and there is no representation or correspondence by the Petitioner. It is respectfully submitted that the relief sought to be placed by the Petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mahesh Chandra's case is misconceived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar facts in the matter of Hariyana Financial Corporation and others Vs. Jagadamba Oil Mills and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 834 has overruled the case law of Mahesh Chandra. 6. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, paras 5 and 6 are extracted hereunder: “ 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar facts in the matter of Hariyana Financial Corporation and others Vs. Jagadamba Oil Mills and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 834 has overruled the case law of Mahesh Chandra. 6. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, paras 5 and 6 are extracted hereunder: “ 5. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner having availed the loan facility, had committed defaults in repayment of loan amount therefore the unit was seized by the official respondents in the year 1996 itself. However an opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner by considering its representation dated 10.10.1996 and the seizure proceedings were recalled on 28.10.1996. But the writ petitioner did not keep up his promise and again committed defaults in repayment of loan amount therefore the official respondents had no other go, except to seized the unit. Accordingly the unit was again seized on 19.02.1997 and a panchanama to that effect was also prepared. Even after seizure of the unit, the writ petitioner did not come forward to pay the loan amounts or with any other proposal for lifting the seizure. Therefore the official respondents issued an advertisement for sale of the subject unit along with land, building and machinery, duly publishing in the news papers including in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 7.6.1997. Thus, there had been a wide publicity of the sale of the unit. 6. It is submitted that the 3 rd Respondent having came to know of the advertisement, had offered to purchase the unit for a sum of Rs.4.75 lakhs and after negotiation it was enhanced to a tune of Rs.5.35 lakhs. Since the said offer was the highest one, the official respondents have issued a sale letter in favour of the 3 rd respondent on 23.09.1997 and the possession of the assets was also handed over to us. Accordingly a registered sale deed Doct.No.2397/2000 was executed in favour of the 3 rd Respondent on 7.4.2000. From the date of purchase of the property, the 3 rd Respondent has been in physical possession and enjoyment over the subject property and has been running the factory without any interruption from any corner.” 7. Accordingly a registered sale deed Doct.No.2397/2000 was executed in favour of the 3 rd Respondent on 7.4.2000. From the date of purchase of the property, the 3 rd Respondent has been in physical possession and enjoyment over the subject property and has been running the factory without any interruption from any corner.” 7. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as under: The petitioner is one of the Directors of Petitioner Company i.e., Shivramdas Board Industries Private Limited. The 1 st Respondent Corporation had granted a loan in favour of petitioner industry vide Loan Account No.74236318 and the petitioner had purchased the plant and machinery of the said loanee and loan amount was transferred by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner, there had been a change in the management of the petitioner company thereafter. On the ground that Loanee had committed default in payment of the loan amount, the 2 nd respondent had seized the Factory of the Petitioner sometime in the month of September, 1996, but subsequent to the petitioner submitting a representation seeking release of the subject Unit offering to pay the loan amount in monthly installments of Rs.50,000/- per month, and upon the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and an amount of Rs.33,000/- on 10.09.1996 the Corporation had released the Unit and the petitioner commenced production in the month of November, 1996 again the respondent corporation had seized the Unit of the petitioner in the month of February 1997 without any notice regarding the quantum of the loan amount or indicating that the Corporation is proceeding with auction under Section 29 of the A.P. State Finance Corporation Act. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the Unit was seized for the second time, petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent and stated that petitioner may be given another opportunity to carry on production for clearing the loan amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that after the Unit was seized for the second time, petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent and stated that petitioner may be given another opportunity to carry on production for clearing the loan amount. It is further the case of the petitioner that the value of the Unit of the petitioner is not less than Rs.10.00 lakhs as per the expert valuation and after the Unit of the petitioner was seized for the second time the Corporation without any publicity with regard to the sale of the Unit of the petitioner had entered into a secret deal with the 3 rd respondent and transferred the ownership of the Unit to the 3 rd respondent at Rs.5.35 lakhs and that the petitioner came to know about the collusion of the respondents 1 and 2 with the 3 rd respondent only on 04.11.1997. The petitioner contends that the minimum value of the unit can never be less than Rs.12.00 lakhs by any stretch of imagination and the petitioner is ready to clear the outstanding loan amount which is said to be a tune of Rs.9.00 lakhs and commenced the activity of production, since the petitioner does not have any other source of business. It is further the case of the petitioner that had the petitioner been put on notice by the respondent corporation about its intention of transferring the Unit to the 3 rd respondent for a paltry consideration amount of Rs.5.35 lakhs, the petitioner would have prevented the same and procured better bidders or petitioner himself would have taken back to Unit on repayment of the said loan amount and that the petitioner had in fact been requesting the respondent corporation to reschedule the loan amount in order to enable the petitioner to clear the same in installments and the corporation had failed to consider the request of the petitioner and hence the petitioner has every reason to suspect that the officers of the respondent corporation had colluded with the 3 rd respondent in transferring the unit to the 3 rd respondent for a paltry amount. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 8. The learned Senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Corporation did not give any notice at any stage after seizure in the month of February 1997 and thus the petitioner had been kept in dark. (ii) The corporation entered into a secret transaction with the 3 rd respondent in collusion with the 3 rd respondent and transferred the Unit to the 3 rd respondent for a paltry amount. (iii) The request of the petitioner to reschedule the loan amount in order to enable the petitioner to clear the loan amount in installments had not been considered by the respondent corporation in spite of petitioner’s readiness to clear the outstanding loan amount to a tune of Rs.9.00 lakhs and to commence the activity of production. (iv) The respondent corporation did not give wide publicity with regard to the sale of the Unit of the petitioner and entered into a secret deal with the 3 rd respondent and transferred the ownership of the Unit to the 3 rd respondent at a paltry sum of Rs.5.35 lakhs. (v) The total sale consideration as per the sale deed dated 07.04.2000 is Rs.3,85,000/- whereas curiously in the counter affidavit filed by 3 rd respondent at para 6 it is stated as Rs.5.35 lakhs. (vi) It is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 at para 5 that in response to the paper advertisement the respondent No.2 had received an offer from the 3 rd respondent for a sum of Rs.4.75 lakhs and upon negotiation the lone tenderer i.e., the 3 rd respondent herein had enhanced his offer to Rs.5.35 lakhs the same indicates that there is collusion between the 3 rd respondent and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since there cannot be any negotiations after auction. (vii) The sale letter is dated 23.10.1997 the sale deed however had been executed between the respondent corporation and 3 rd respondent herein after three years i.e., on 07.04.2000 and the said delay in executing the sale deed in favour of the 3 rd respondent had not been answered in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 nor in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd respondent. The learned Senior Designate Counsel on the basis of the aforesaid submissions and placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court reported in 2004 Vol.7 SCC page 151 paras 11 and 14 and 2004 Vol.7 SCC page 166 para 17 contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) After the seizure of the Unit on 19.02.1997 the petitioner did not respond or come forward with any proposal either for lifting of the seizure or for closure of the loan account and having regard to the same the 2 nd respondent issued sale advertisement in Newspaper in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 07.06.1997 and in pursuance to the paper advertisement the 2 nd respondent had received an offer from the 3 rd respondent for a sum of Rs.4.75 lakhs and upon negotiation with the 3 rd respondent who was a loan tenderer, the 3 rd respondent enhanced his offer to Rs.5.35 lakhs and a Registered Sale Deed vide document No.2379 of 2000 was executed in favour of the 3 rd respondent on 07.04.2000. (ii) There is no truth or substance in the pleas put forth by the petitioner that the respondents 1 and 2 colluded with the 3 rd respondent and sold the Unit in favour of the 3 rd respondent. There is any secret sale as alleged by the petitioner and the same had infact been specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 placed reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and further placed reliance on the Judgments listed below : 1. 2002 Vol.3 Supreme Court Cases 496 in “ HARYANA FI NANCI AL CORPORATI ON AND ANOTHER v. JAGDAMBA OI L MI LLS AND ANOTHER” , in particular, para 17 extracted hereunder: 17. The aforesaid guidelines issued in Mahesh Chandra case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of power by Financial Corporation contained in Section 29 of the Act by requiring the defaulting unit-holder to be associated or consulted at every stage in the sale of the property. The aforesaid guidelines issued in Mahesh Chandra case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of power by Financial Corporation contained in Section 29 of the Act by requiring the defaulting unit-holder to be associated or consulted at every stage in the sale of the property. A person who has defaulted is hardly ever likely to cooperate in the sale of his assets. The procedure indicated in Mahesh Chandra case will only lead to further delay in realization of the dues by the Corporation by sale of assets. It is always expected that the Corporation will 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.” 2. 2022 Law suit (SC) page 541, in “ RAJASTHAN FI NANCI AL CORPORATI ON JAI PUR AND OTHERS v. M/ S. JAI N BANDHU SNEH RESORTS PRI VATE LI MI TED AND ANOTHER ” , in particular, para 12 is extracted hereunder: “[12] The Division Bench of the High Court has set aside the confirmation of sale only on the ground that the Corporation has not taken into account the escalation of the prices in property between 14.06.2013 to 15.01.2018. Except this ground, there is no fault found with the auction proceedings and finalization of the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the sale in favour of the Auction Purchaser could not have been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on this ground alone. However, we are in agreement with the observation that the Corporation ought to have considered imposing interest on the bid amount from 2013 to 2018.” And contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 rd respondent mainly puts forth the follow ing submissions: i) The petitioner having availed the loan facility had committed defaults in repayment of loan amount and therefore, the unit was seized by the official respondents in the year 1996 itself. ii) The petitioner was given ample opportunity for repayment of loan amount but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity provided by respondents 1 and 2 to repay the loan. iii) Based on petitioner’s representation dated 10.10.1996 the seizure proceeding were recalled on 28.10.1996. ii) The petitioner was given ample opportunity for repayment of loan amount but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity provided by respondents 1 and 2 to repay the loan. iii) Based on petitioner’s representation dated 10.10.1996 the seizure proceeding were recalled on 28.10.1996. iv) Even after the seizure the petitioner did not come forward to pay the loan amounts or with any other proposal for lifting the seizure. Therefore the official respondents had issued an advertisement for sale of the subject Unit along with land, building and machinery, duly publishing in the newspapers in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 07.06.1997, thus there had been a wide publicity of the sale of the Unit. v) Since the 3 rd respondent had offered the highest price, sale letter was issued in favour of the 3 rd respondent on 23.09.1997 and possession of the subject Unit along with land building and machinery was handed over to the 3 rd respondent duly registering the sale deed document No.2397 of 2000 on 07.04.2000 executed in favour of the 3 rd respondent. vi) From the date of purchase of the subject property the 3 rd respondent had been in physical possession and enjoyment of the same and had been running the factory without any interruption in any corner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 rd respondent on the basis of the aforesaid submissions and placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent contends that settled things cannot be unsettled and hence the writ petition is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed. DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON: 11. This Court on perusal of the record opines that all the pleas as put forth by the petitioner are answered at paragraph 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2. DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON: 11. This Court on perusal of the record opines that all the pleas as put forth by the petitioner are answered at paragraph 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 specifically denied the plea of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had conducted a secret sale of the plant and machinery of the petitioner to the respondent No.3 at throw away price i.e., for a paltry sum without notice to the petitioner at para 4 of the counter affidavit and contended in the said para 4 that before sale of the Unit under Section 29 of the Financial Corporation Act, the Unit was seized and panchanama conducted on 19.02.1997, and Telegram dated 27.08.1997 w as duly issued to the petitioner prior to conducting the sale on 23.10.1997. It is further explained at para 5 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the enhanced offer of the 3 rd respondent compared favourably and covered 92% of the evaluation of the assets made by the respondent corporation, hence a sale letter in favour of the 3 rd respondent was issued on 23.09.1997 and the possession of the assets was also handed over to the 3 rd respondent and a Registered sale deed vide document No.2379 of 2000 was executed in favour of the respondent No.3 on 07.04.2000. 12. On a bare perusal of the averments made at para 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that initially on the ground that the petitioner had committed default in repayment of the agreed loan amount, the Unit was seized by the Respondent corporation in the year 1996 and upon the representation of the petitioner dated 10.10.1996 the seizure had been lifted on 28.10.1996 but how ever the petitioner failed to honour petitioner’s ow n commitment and the Unit was again seized on 19.02.1997 and even after seizure of the Unit the petitioner failed to come forward with any proposal either for lifting of the seizure or for closure of the loan account and having regard to the same the respondent Corporation had issued sale advertisement in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu dated 07.06.1997 and thus there had been a wide publicity of the sale of the Unit. 13. 13. In so far as the plea of the learned Senior Designate Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the 3 rd respondent was the sole bidder, the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 27.04.2022 in “ RAJASTHAN FI NANCI AL CORPORATI ON JAI PUR AND OTHERS v. M/ S. JAI N BANDHU SNEH RESORTS PRI VATE LI MI TED AND ANOTHER ” reported in 2022 Law suit (SC) 541 clearly dealt with the case in which auction purchaser emerged as a sole bidder and observed that the sale in favour of the said auction purchaser could not have been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that Corporation had not taken into account the escalation of the prices in property between 14.06.2013 to 15.01.2018 and the Corporation ought to have considered imposing interest on the bid amount from 2013 to 2018. 14. A bare perusal of the material document dated 14.09.2025 issued by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondents 1 and 2 along with their counter affidavit clearly indicates that the petitioner has no bonafides while issuing the cheque in repayment of the loan amount, in view of the fact that the said cheque issued by the petitioner to the respondent corporation towards repayment of the loan amount had been dishonoured. 15. This Court opines that in the matter of sale under Section 29 in the present case the respondents 1 and 2 acted in accordance with the statute fairly and reasonably and taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the Registered Sale deed document No.2397/ 2000 was executed in favour of the 3 rd respondent on 07.04.2000 itself and duly considering that no interim orders had been granted in favour of the petitioner, this Court opines that at this length of time settled things cannot be unsettled. 16. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in 2002 Vol.3 SCC page 496 in Haryana Financial Corporation and another Vs. Jagadamba Oil Mills and another , at para 17 observed as under: “17. 16. The Apex Court in its Judgment reported in 2002 Vol.3 SCC page 496 in Haryana Financial Corporation and another Vs. Jagadamba Oil Mills and another , at para 17 observed as under: “17. The aforesaid guidelines issued in Mahesh Chandra case place unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of pow er by Financial Corporation contained in Section 29 of the Act by requiring the defaulting unit- holder to be associated or consulted at every stage in the sale of the property. A person who has defaulted is hardly ever likely to cooperate in the sale of his assets. The procedure indicated in Mahesh Chandra case will only lead to further delay in realization of the dues by the Corporation by sale of assets. It is always expected that the Corporation will 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.” 17. This Court opines that the Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner do not apply to the present facts of the case in view of the fact that the petitioner herein failed to make any effort to clear the outstanding loan and further the Legal Notice issued by the Respondent Corporation to the petitioner dated 14.09.1995 under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, evidences the fact that the petitioner was not having the bonafides while issuing the cheque in repayment of the loan amount to the respondent corporation and the petitioner failed to respond even after the seizure of the Unit on 19.02.1997 nor responded to the Telegram dated 27.08.1997 issued to the petitioner nor the sale advertisement carried out by the respondent corporation in Deccan Chronicle and Eenadu Newspapers dated 07.06.1997. 18. Taking into consideration: (a) The submissions put forth by the learned Senior Designate Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 rd respondent, (b) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3 rd respondent (referred to and extracted above), (c) The view of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to above and enlisted below : i) 2022 Law Suit(SC) 541 ii) 2002 Vol. 3 SCC Page 496 (d) The contents of the Notice dated 14.09.1995 issued to the petitioner under Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 by the Respondent Corporation pertaining to dishonor of cheque issued by the petitioner filed as material document along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, This Court opines that there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.