S.K.Katriar, J.

1. These two writ petitions raise common questions with respect to take over and disposal of the same industrial unit in terms of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Therefore, the two have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. CWJC No. 10218 of 1999 has been preferred by one of the intending purchasers whose offer has not been accepted by the Bihar State Financial Corporation who are Respondent No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Corporation) and instead the offer of Respondent No. 4 (Smt. Sharda Devi) to take over the unit has been accepted. Respondent No. 5 (Smt. Rekha Jain) is the petitioner in the analogous CWJC No. 11262 of 1999, and is a partner of the partnership firm which owns the unit. The partnership firm is the loanee and has been doing business in the name of M/s Kumar Steel Works. The case of Rekha Jain is that her right to retain the property on matching terms, being the original promoter, ought to have been accepted by the Corporation. We shall go by the description of the parties and the facts obtaining in CWJC No. 10218 of 1999, and reference to CWJC No. 11262 of 1999 shall be specifically indicated.

3. M/s Kumar Steel Works was set up and owned by a partnership firm of three persons, namely, Rekha Jain, Yashwant Kumar Jain (since deceased), and his widow, Usha Jain. It appears from the pleadings that Yashwant Kumar Jain died on 30-3-1990. The firm had taken a loan of Rs. 3.43 lakh from the Corporation during the period 2-5-1979 to 22-6-1983 to set up Kumar Steel Worked at Ara, engaged in the job of steel utensils. The firm did not pay a paise in repayment of its loan and the dues soared. Therefore, the Corporation initiated action under sec. 29 of the Act and published advertisement on 26-6-1995 for sale of the unit, a photocopy of which is at page 112 of CWJC No. 11262 of 1999. It showed total outstanding dues of Rs. 22.08 lacs as on 30-6-1995, and the reserve price was Rs. 17.68 lacs. Perhaps, there was no response to this advertisement and, therefore, the same was cancelled followed by another advertisement which appeared in the local dailies on 21 -3-1996, a photocopy of which is at page 110 of CWJC No. 11262 of 1999, op similar terms and conditions except that the outstanding dues shown to be Rs. 23.44 lacs as on 23-12-1995, and the reserve price was scaled down to Rs. 8.22 lakhs. 30-3-1996 was the last date for submission of offers. The advertisement further stipulated that the offer shall be accompanied with A/c Payee Demand Draft for Rs. 20,000.00 as earnest money. Respondent No. 4 had submitted her offer for Rs. 6.60 lakh out of which 25% (Rs. 1.65 lakh) was to be deposited in cash within a period of one month and the balance was payable in easy instalments. The offer was accompanied with A/c Payee demand draft for Rs. 20,000.00 . According to the petitioner, before the offer of Respondent No. 4 was accepted, the petitioner submitted his offer vide letter date 24-5-1999 (Annexure-1), making an offer of Rs. 7,11,000.00 including cash-down payment of 30% of the same, and the balance was to paid in installments. The offer was accompanied with A/c Payee Cheque for Rs. 20,000.00 . The petitioner did not receive any communication from the Corporation and, therefore, submitted his reminder dated 31-7-1999 (Annexure-2) that his offer was negotiable. Accordingly, the petitioner received the Corporations letter date 23-8-1999 (Annexure-3), conveying the decision rejecting the petitioners offer on the ground that the earnest money of Rs. 20,000.00 was deposited per cheque, instead of Demand Draft. This was followed by the petitioners letter date 30-8-1999 (Annexure-4), accompanied by a demand draft for Rs. 20,000.00 , with the request that his offer should be accepted, being the highest one. The Corporation by its letter date 30-9-1999 (Annexure-5) informed the petitioner that sale of the