WP(C) 6535/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioners, who are legal heirs of Binod Borpujari, the managing pa rtner of a partnership firm, in the name and style of M/s Modus Media, by the pr esent petition, have challenged the notice issued by the Managing Director of As sam Financial Corporation published in the local daily namely the \Assam Tribune \ on 3.12.2010 putting the property belonging to them for auction sale fixing 10 .12.2010 as the date for such auction. I have heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is contended by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent Corporation sanctioned an amount of Rs. 14 lakhs in the name of the said firm in the year 1987 and during the lifetime of their predecessor-in-inter est Binod Barman and in securing the said loan the land measuring 2 kathas 1 lec ha with Assam type residential house thereon was mortgaged in favour of the resp ondent Corporation as security. It is submitted that for realisation of the amou nt advanced with interest, a suit was initially filed by the Corporation under t he provision of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, which was decreed ex parte for Rs. 19,42,853.20 and thereafter the said decree was put into execution . However, according to the learned counsel without proceeding further, a notice under Section 29 of the said Act was issued by the Corporation for putting the suit property to public auction fixing 10.12.2010 as the date for such auction. It is submitted that such notice dated 3.12.2010 under Section 29 of the Act was issued without issuing any notice to the petitioners to show cause as to why th e property should not be put to public auction. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the said notice be set aside. An alternative prayer has also been made by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners that since out of the amount of Rs. 14 lakhs only Rs. 13,50,000 /- was released during the lifetime of Binod Barman, the respondent Corporation may be directed to waive the interest charged on the said amount. It has also been submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing t o pay the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs, which is the price fixed in the auction. Ms Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has su bmitted that under the provision of the State Financial Corporation Act there is no requirement of issuance of a prior notice before exercising the power confer red under Section 29 of the said Act. It has also been submitted that as on 23.6 .2010 the amount payable against the said loan amount stands at more than Rs. 4 crores. Ms Goswami, learned counsel however submits that if the petitioners appr oach the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for remission of the interest, the same shall d efinitely be considered by the Corporation and necessary order shall be passed. The petitioners though have challenged the aforesaid notice dated 3.12.2 010 issued under Section 29 of the said Act on the ground that no prior notice w as issued, nothing could be placed before this Court requiring issuance of such a notice. It appears that on the basis of the power conferred under Section 29 of the said Act the mortgaged property was put to public auction fixing 10.12.2010. The auction, however, could not be conducted on that day because of the interim order of this Court. The possession of the suit property admittedly has been ta ken over by the respondent Corporation in terms of the provision of the aforesai d Act. That being the position, the challenge made to the said notice cannot be sustained. However, since the petitioners expressed their willingness to settle the dispute, they may approach the respondents by way of a representation prayi ng for remissions of the interest charged on the loan amount and in case such re presentation is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall de finitely be considered by the respondent No. 2 and pass necessary order thereon. Until such consideration is made the property shall not be put to auction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.