JUDGMENT

V. GOPALA GOWDA, C.J. - These two writ petitions have been filed by the self same petitioners. Petitioner NO.2 in both the writ petitions is the borrower from the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter called in short as 'Corporation' and petitioner NO.1 stood as guarantor for the borrowed amount. They have filed the writ petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus and such other direction as this Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case against the Corporation in respect of quashing of sale of the property mortgaged with opposite party NO.1 as collateral security and direction to the Corporation for accepting one time settlement of 2005 or 2007 urging various facts and legal contention.

2. The relevant brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating factual and rival legal contention with a view to find out as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed in these writ petition. The bus bearing Regn. NO. OSX 3383 was allowed to be transferred from the original borrower Sri Ramesh Chandra Kar in favour of one Asish Kumar Kar as the former could not repay the loan amount of Rs.2,90,000/ - advanced by the Corporation for purchase of the said bus. The said, Asish Kumar Kar went on repaying the loan in instalments till 1993 and then he defaulted in paying the instalment amount towards the debt due to the Corporation. On account of such default made on- the part of said Asish Kumar Kar, the bus was put to auction by the Corporation. Petitioner NO.2 purchased the said bus at Rs.70,000/- only with approval of the Corporation and agreed to take over the entire liability of the said Asish Kumar Kar, the original debtor for the said transaction. Petitioner NO.1 along with her son Sri Pradipta Kumar Mohapatra and daughter Pravamayee Mohapatra stood as guarantors in favour of petitioner NO.2 and as such, their most valuable and only landed property with dwelling house standing thereon was mortgaged with the Corporation.

3. Pursuant to the request made by petitioner NO.2 for settlement of his loan account, the Corporation vide its letter dated 6.1.2004 agreed to settle the loan account under OTS-2003 Scheme, but the same came to be rejected by the Corporation on technical ground even after accepting Rs.56,400/- from him. On 28.9.2005, petitioner NO.2 represented before the concerned authority seeking settlement of the loan account under OTS-2004 Scheme. The Corporation accepted the OTS proposal made by the petitioner NO.2 at Rs.6,27,400/- for full and final settlement of the loan account. Petitioner NO.2 preferred a representation to the Corporation (Annexure-6 in W P. (c) NO.7220 of 2007) seeking for revision/reconsideration of the offered amount of Rs. 6,27,400/- as the same was too exorbitant and the letter vide Annexure-5 in WP.(C) NO.7220 of 2007 did not reflect the true accounts of the receipts and payments made in relation to the loan account. The Corporation arbitrarily rejected the representation (Annexure-6) and insisted for payment of the entire settlement amount of Rs.6,27,400/- on or before 15.9.2006 failing which the OTS offer would automatically stand cancelled, vide letter Annexure-7 in W.P.(C) NO.7220 of 2007, Petitioner NO.2 received the aforesaid Annexure-7 to the W.P.(C) No,7220 of 2007 from the Corporation and thereafter repeatedly ,visited the office of the Corporation seeking reconsideration of letters under Annexures 5 and 7, but the same did not yield any result. Thereafter, the Corporation issued public notice dated 14.11.2006 (Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No,7220 of 2007) for sale of the mortgaged property in auction fixing 28.11.2006 as the date of final bidding to be dropped in sealed cover in the tender box and 29.11,2006 as the date of auction.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that no tenders were dropped in the tender box on 28.11 2006 and on 29.11.2006, petitioner NO.2 deposited Rs.30,000/- with the Corporation in the form of bank draft st