A mortgagee has the right to sell the mortgaged property under Section 29 of the West Bengal Financial Corporation Act, 1954, to recover its dues, and a purchaser of a mortgaged property purchases only the equity of redemption.

GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. :- A notice dated 6th July, 2005 is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. The facts and circumstances of the case briefly stated are as follows :-

2. The respondent No.1 the West Bengal Financial Corporation (WBFC for short) and the respondent No.4 the West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (WBIDC for short) are both the mortgagees in respect of the immovable properties belonging to S. P. Cycles Limited situate at Narendrapur in the district of 24-Parganas (South). The respondent No.4/WBIDC advertised a sale notice intending to sell the fixed assets of the aforesaid S. P. Cycles Ltd. on terms and conditions available with the Follow Up and Recovery Division. Intending purchasers were to submit their tender to be opened on 10th November, 1997. The writ petitioner's offer to purchase the assets at a sum of Rs. 69 lakhs was accepted by WBIDC by its letter dated 9th February, 2000. The sum of Rs. 69 lakhs included down payment of a sum of Rs. 17.25 lakh, payable within a period of 45 days and the balance sum of Rs. 51.75 lacs was payable in 12 quarterly installments commencing from 30th June, 2000. There was a default clause which provided as follows :-

"In case of consecutive default in payment of any of the above installments, this offer of sale shall stand withdrawn."

3. According to the petitioner after the down payment was made the WBIDC for the first time disclosed that portions of the property belonging to S. P. Cycles Ltd. was in possession of Sen and Pandit Electronics Private Limited pursuant to a permission granted by WBIDC. The case of the petitioner in paragraph 12 of the petition is that "The WBIDC wrongfully and with ulterior motives suppressed the said agreements dated 2nd May, 1989 and the creation of leave and licence by the S. P. Cycles Limited in favour of Sen and Pandit Electronics P. Ltd." On 5th May, 2000 a joint meeting was held which was attended by the representatives of S. P. Cycles Ltd., Sen and Pandit Electronics P. Ltd., WBIDC and the petitioner No.1. In the meeting the fact that the property had been agreed to be sold to the petitioner was discussed and/or disclosed by the WBIDC. The petitioner thereafter, as would appear from paragraph 15 of the petition, made repeated demands for possession of the property which was ultimately given to the petitioner on 10th July, 2000 on 'AS IS WHERE IS BASIS'. A certificate of possession duly signed by both the parties is annexure 'P-7' to the writ petition.

4. WBIDC has disclosed in its affidavit a letter dated 13th November, 2000 by which the writ petitioner sought for a moratorium of payment for a year. It would be appropriate to notice the letter in extenso which reads as follows :-

"In response to the letter given by the Financial Controller cum Secretary of your department, we would like to draw your kind attention that we have requested you for balance payment one year moratorium from the date of our down payment and your goodself has agreed for nine months moratorium which is up to 31st March, 2001. We would like to inform you sir and we hope that we will be able to pay your installment as well as the interest in time. A xerox copy of the letter of the Financial Controller cum Secretary has been enclosed."

5. WBIDC in its affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 4 (XV) has alleged as follows:-

"The petitioners, however, through their letter dated 13-2-2002 informed that some scrap materials sold at Rs. 1.50 lac and deposited 1.75 lac with WBIDC against the balance 75% of the sale price, without, however, informing the financial institutions about the details of the fixed assets disposed of, so far, as such, by the petitioners till today."

6. The writ petitioner in its reply, affirmed by Sri Ratan Maruthia on 15th September, 2005 has alleged as follows :-

"With regard to the contents of paragraphs 4(xiii) to 4(XIX) of the said affidavit, it is denied that there has been any default in making payment of ins