IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3288 of 2007 Date of decision: 23.10.2008 Renu Singh and others. -----Petitioners Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: This petition seeks quashing of recovery certificate dated 2.5.2006 (Annexure P-15) issued under Section 32G of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short, “the Act”). Case of the petitioners is that loan was taken to purchase machinery on 4.5.1998, but there was default in repayment. This led to taking over of possession of the unit of the petitioners under Section 29 of the Act on 19.10.2002, followed by sale of the property on 14.3.2003. The auction purchaser failed to make the payment, on which the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. The Financial Corporation did not forfeit the same and refunded the same to the auction purchaser. C.W.P. No.3288 of 2007 The said property was sold again in favour of the buyer arranged by the petitioners, on which the earlier sale was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that action of the Financial Corporation in refunding the earnest money was illegal and the said amount should have been credited to the account of the petitioners. The Financial Corporation should also be held liable for the delay in disposing of the property, on account of which further interest accumulated against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the Financial Corporation submits that sale depends on availability of a buyer and as soon as the petitioners furnished the buyer, the sale was completed. Earlier all efforts were made and the liability of interest accrued against the petitioners as per the contract. The refund of earnest money was also justified in the circumstances. The disputed questions raised in the petition cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction. We do not find any ground for interference with the action of the Financial Corporation in the parameters of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that if the petitioners have any other remedy, dismissal of this petition will not stand in their way. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE October 23, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2