The petitioner was the Managing Director of M/s. Star Agro & Wheat Roller Flour Mills Private Limited. The unit was established by availing a loan from the 2nd respondent Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (KSIDC). The business of the company ended in a loss. So the company could not pay the amount due to the 2nd respondent. The said respondent took over the assets of the Company under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act. The property was sold in public auction for an amount of Rs.1,51,22,222/-. The amount due to the KSIDC was only Rs.1,12,38,205/-. The Federal bank Limited had a second charge on the property and for recovering the amount due to it, the Bank moved the Debt Recovery Tribunal and as per the direction of the DRT, the balance amount was deposited with the said Tribunal.

2. The petitioner, after the sale was over, filed Ext.P1 representation before the Government, claiming that the closure of the loan account may be treated as one under the One Time Settlement Scheme and the excess amount received by the KSIDC may be refunded to him. This Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 13/11/2002 directed the Government to consider the said representation. The Government after hearing both sides, that is the petitioner and the second respondent, issued Ext.P3 communication. The operative portion of the said communication reads as follows :-

"On the basis of above facts, it is directed that KSIDC may take action to apportion 10% of the sale proceeds to the petitioner and settle the issue accordingly."

When the 2nd respondent KSIDC failed to comply with the above direction in Ext.P3, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the Government on 15/07/2003. The Government issued Ext.P5 communication to the KSIDC, directing it to reconsider its stand. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 2nd respondent KSIDC. While so, the petitioner was informed by the KSIDC by Ext.P7 communication dated 01/01/2004 that it cannot agree with his request. In the above background, this writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P7 communication of the 2nd respondent and also praying for a further direction to the said respondent to implement Exts.P3 and P5. The petitioner submits that as long as Ext.P3 remains in force, the 2nd respondent is bound to comply with the directions contained therein.

3. The KSIDChas filed a counter affidavit, resisting the prayers made in the writ petition. According to it, the amount due to it has been recovered, invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and the balance amount was deposited with the DRT. The petitioners company owes an amount of Rs.30 lakhs towards sales tax. Other dues are also payable by the Company to the local Grama Panchayat, KSEB, etc. Those authorities may claim the amount from the 2nd respondent. It is also submitted that petitioner, who is a shareholder, has no special claim over the assets of the company. The Government issued the order without application of mind. So the same cannot be implemented, it is submitted.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The learned Government Pleader supported the claim of the petitioner. But, Mr. Pathrose Mathai, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the amount of loan taken, which is shown as Rs.13 lakhs in Ext.P3, is not correct. It is evident from Ext.P1 representation itself. The Government have no power or authority to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P3. The Government, without properly applying its mind to the facts of the case, have issued such an order. So, the 2nd respondent is not bound to obey the direction, it is submitted. The learned senior counsel submitted that Ext.P3 is only a letter issued by the Secretary to Government and therefore, it cannot be treated as an order of the Government. Reliance is placed on Article 166 of the Constitution of India and it is submitted that as long as t