The scope of judicial review of the actions of the Bihar State Financial Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, and the court cannot interfere unless the Corporation's actions are mala fide.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. This matter should be disposed of at the admission stage and I do so by passing the following order :

2. This writ petition was filed with the following prayer :-

"(i) Respondents 1 to 4 be directed to enhance the allotment of Slack Wax from 10 Metric Tonnes to the petitioner or alternatively if the respondents are not in a position to allot the required quantity of Slack Wax, the respondents be directed to grant permission to the petitioner to import it and for that necessary permission be given to him. (ii) The auction sale notice contained in Annexure-7 of this writ petition with regard to the petitioner unit be quashed. (iii) Respondent No. 5 be directed to accept the payment with simple interest only and to charge the amount as stated above till the quota of Slack Wax is enhanced. (iv) For any other relief/ reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled under law in the facts and the circumstances of the case."

3. In so far as the first prayer is concerned relating to enhancement of the allotment of Slack Wax from 10 Metric Tonnes, this Court is of the view that now there is no restraint imposed on the import of Slack Wax inasmuch as the same is a decanalised item as would appear from the facts mentioned in the letter of Ministry of Petroleum and N. G. dt. Jan. 18, 1995 handed over to this Court by the learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The same has also been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot legitimately make any grievance so far as the first prayer is concerned.

4. However, this Court further records that in the event of the writ petitioners making a prayer for allotment of Slack Wax from the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited either at Patna or at its regional office at Calcutta, the learned counsel Mr. Kali Das Chatterjee, appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, assures the Court that, subject to the availability of the aforesaid material, the said prayer will be favourably and expeditiously considered.

5. In so far as the petitioners dues payable to the Bihar State Financial Corporation (respondent No. 5) is concerned, the only grievance which the Court can take into consideration is an alleged lack of grant of opportunity raised in paragraph 32 of the writ petition inasmuch as in the said paragraph it has been stated that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to make payment or to rearrange the installments, the petitioners unit has been put up for auction sale.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents Corporation has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter-affidavit filed in this Court on their behalf and also the fact that the dues of the petitioner with principal and interest comes to Rs. 17.94 lacs as on 28-2-1993. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the facts and figures detailed in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. This Court is not in a position to go into the vortex of accountancy and cannot decide whether the said amount stated in the counter-affidavit of respondent Corporation is due from the writ petitioner or not. In the absence of necessary expertise, this Court should not go into those questions.

7. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra V/s. U. P. Financial Corporation reported in AIR 1993 SC 935. The Supreme Court has considered the said judgment in a subsequent decision in the case of U.P. Financial Corporation V/s. M/s. Gem Cap (India) Pvt. Ltd., and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 1435 in which the Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that in a matter between the Corporation and its debtor, "a writ Court has no say except in two situations : (1) there is a statutory violation on the part of the Corporation or (2) where the Corporation acts unfairly i.e. unreasonably." After s