THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9439 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.587, dated 09.05.2003. Through the said G.O., the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the State Financial Corporation, the second respondent herein, to alienate an extent of Acs.80.36 guntas of land, together with building, plant and machinery in Survey No.23/1/PP of Kaveli Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District in favour of the seventh respondent herein. One M/s. International Drug Company was allotted the said land by the Government on payment of cost for the purpose of establishing an industry. The second respondent advanced loan to it. On the ground that the company committed default in repayment of the loan, the second respondent initiated steps for sale of the assets of the company. In the auction held in the year 1994, Mr.P.K.Rao and M.Ramachander Rao emerged as highest bidders for a sum of Rs.40,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.14,17,500/- was paid. According to them, the second respondent undertook to sanction loan for the balance amount. Stating that the second respondent resiled from its commitment, the petitioner requested it to revoke the deal. The request made by the petitioner was accepted and an amount of Rs.19,66,461/- comprising of Rs.14,17,750/- paid by it and interest at the rate of 18.5% was refunded. In the subsequent auction held by the second respondent, the seventh respondent has emerged as the highest bidder. Through the impugned G.O., the first respondent accorded permission for alienation of the land. The petitioner contends that it had invested huge amount with a view to revive the industry and its attempt could not fructify on account of non-cooperation on the part of the second respondent. It is stated that a legal notice was issued on 01.05.2004 claiming a sum of Rs.1,37,95,560/- and without even settling that claim, the impugned G.O. is issued. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the deal in favour of the petitioner was revoked on its own request and the accrued amount has been paid. The second respondent further states that the unit was sold in favour of the seventh respondent duly following the prescribed procedure and through the impugned G.O., permission was accorded for alienation of the property. Heard Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. This is one of the cases where the second respondent acted in the fairest possible manner towards a defaulter. The Managing Director of the petitioner in his personal capacity and another person have emerged as highest bidders for a sum of Rs.40,50,000/-. The initial amount of Rs.14,17,500/- was paid and expressing their inability to pay the balance, they have themselves prayed for revocation of the entire deal. In the matters of this nature, whenever default is committed, the earnest money paid thus far, would be forfeited. In all fairness to the petitioner, the second respondent paid an amount of Rs.19,66,461/- with interest way back on 04.09.1998. Ever since then, the petitioner did not even demur for the action on the part of the second respondent. In the legal notice, dated 01.05.2004, the petitioner admitted all these facts and its claim was only for payment of a further sum of rupees one crore. Never the petitioner laid a claim upon the property, much less it had pursued the matter for purchase of the same. Therefore, the writ petition is totally misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.02.2009 kdl