IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.02.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.No.5872 of 2009 M.P.No.1 of 2009 --- G.Radhakrishnan ..Petitioner -Vs- 1.Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Rep. By its Branch Manager Sri Lakshmi Complex (1st Floor) No.4/22, Omalur Main Road Swarnapuri, Salem-636 004. 2.Devaki ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned letter of the first respondent dated 26.02.2009 in his proceedings No.TIICSLM-BO-AO- KM:2008-09 confirming the auction sale of the factory site bearing Survey No.248/1 and 229/4 Kathari Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District in favour of the 2nd respondent pursuant to the public auction held on 22.12.2008 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the proposal of the petition for settlement as per RBI Guidelines. For petitioner : Mr.R.Kannan For respondents : for R1 : Mr.A.Rameshkumar for R2 : No appearance O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 26.02.2009, by which, the first respondent has informed the petitioner that the primary assets viz., the land and building of the unit was sold by public auction on 22.12.2008 and the said auction conducted by the first respondent was confirmed in favour of the second respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.3,30,000/- and therefore, rejected the request of the petitioner to release the primary assets of the petitioner. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that already one half of the same property was sold in public auction for a more price while the first respondent has confirmed the same for the second half of the same property for a less price and hence, the same is malafide. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount and therefore, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to bring prospective purchaser. 4. As it is seen in the counter affidavit of the first respondent, the first respondent has extended waiver concession and advised the petitioner to settle the loan account under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme vide their letters dated 30.06.2003, 13.01.2004, 27.07,2004, 31.08.2005 and 25.09.2006, which opportunity, the petitioner has failed to avail and the loan was not settled. Since the petitioner has not shown any interest in settling the loan amount, the assets were brought for reauction on 07.12.2007 for the fifth time and there was an offer of Rs.4,05,000/- and the same was confirmed. Since there were no offers for the primary land and building, once again, the same was brought for public auction for the sixth time on 22.12.2008 after giving wide publicity in newspapers and also after informing the petitioner about the auction sale. The offer made by the second respondent was originally Rs.3.00 lakhs and the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs.3.30 lakhs. Thereafter, the auction sale was confirmed in favour of the second respondent, who was the highest bidder. Thereafter, the respondent corporation also executed a sale deed in favour of the second respondent on 30.03.2009. 5. In such circumstances, when the auction sale has already been executed in favour of the second respondent, it is not tenable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring the prospective purchaser citing the reason that the offer is less than the market value. If the petitioner wants to question the validity of the sale or otherwise, he has to do the same by filing a suit and not by way of exchange of affidavits in writ petitions. To prove whether the sale is legal or not, the same requires appreciation of evidence, which can be done only before the civil court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ it open to the petitioner to agitate the issue in the manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nvsri To 1.The Branch Manager,Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Sri Lakshmi Complex (1st Floor) No.4/22, Omalur Main Road Swarnapuri, Salem-636 004. +1cc to Mr.R.Kannan, Advocate Sr 9703 +1cc to Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate Sr 9878 GS(CO) km/19.2. WP.No.5872 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/