WP(C) 6890/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr AK Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs T Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, who had availed financial assistance from the respondent Corporation, has challenged the notice for sale/public auction dated 3 December 2010 whereby and where-under certain properties, due to the failure to repay th e loan amount, have been put to auction-sale under provisions of the State Finan cial Corporations Act 1951. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitio ner has challenged the aforesaid notice dated 3 December 2010 (Annexure-21), it now prays for a direction to the respondent Corporation to grant further time to repay the loan on installment basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that though the petitio ner earlier approached the respondent Corporation for grant of further time to i t and consequently the time was once extended, it again approached the Corporati on giving a schedule for repayment, which may be directed to be considered by th e Corporation. It has further been submitted that since on the date fixed for au ction-sale i.e. on 20 December 2010 pursuant to the impugned notice dated 3 Dece mber 2010 no bidders offered the minimum bid value, the auction-sale could not b e finalized. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation, on the other hand, has s ubmitted that petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP(C) 4323/2010 challe nging the notice for sale/ auction issued by the Corporation on 16 July 2010 and the relief claimed therein was though rejected, the petition was disposed of wi th the observation that the petitioner might approach the respondent Corporation with appropriate application seeking appropriate relief, consequently the petit ioner approached the Corporation for extension of time and though time was exten ded since the petitioner had failed to deposit the amount due, the Corporation h ad been left with no other alternative but to issue the impugned notice dated 3 December 2010. Learned counsel for respondent Corporation has further submitted that she has no instruction whether the said auction-sale has been finalized on the date fixed, that is, on 20 December 2010. It has also been submitted that in case the auction-sale has not been finalized on 20 December 2010 and petitioner approaches the Corporation for settlement of the dues, Corporation would defini tely consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 3 December 2010 issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation for auction-sale of the property belon ging to it fixing 20 December 2010. The petitioner earlier approached this Court in WPC No.4323/2010 challenging a similar notice dated 16 July 2010. The relief prayed therein has not been granted. However, a single Bench of this Court, by the order dated 5 August 2010, while disposing of that petition has observed tha t the petitioner might approach the respondent Corporation with appropriate appl ications. It appears that the petitioner, thereafter, filed an application befor e the respondent Corporation seeking time for repayment of the dues and accordin gly time was granted and since no payment is forthcoming the Corporation has iss ued the impugned notice dated 3 December 2010, under the provisions of State Fin ancial Corporation Act 1951, fixing 20 December 2010 for public auction-sale. Av ailing the financial assistance and the failure to repay the same by the petitio ner has not been disputed, which is also observed in the order dated 5 August 20 10 passed in WPC 4323/2010. That being the position, no illegality can be found in issuing the notic e dated 3 December 2010. However, as has been contended by learned counsel for t he petitioner that the property could not be auction-sold due to want of suitabl e bidders offering minimum bid value, the present writ petition is disposed of w ith the observation that the petitioner may approach the respondent Corporation for settlement of the dues payable by it and in the event such approach is made within a period of one week from today, the same shall definitely be considered by the respondent Corporation before issuing any fresh notice for sale/public au ction, if such sale has not already been effected pursuant to the earlier notice dated 3 December 2010. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.