Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, does not require any notice to be given to the industrial concern before taking over its possession.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India an industrial concern M/s Goverdhan Kagaj Udyog, Agra-Mathura Road, Village Runkuta, Agra, the petitioner, beseeches this court to command the U. P. Financial Corporation through its Regional Manager, Shiv Hare Marg, Agra and U. P. Financial Corporation through its Managing Director, Civil Lines, Kanpur, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, to hand over the possession of its firm and to disburse the balance of loan sanctioned to it and also to make fresh schedule for re-payment. The petitioner, besides the usual ritualistic prayers for any other and further writ, order or direction and award of costs, prays that a writ of certiorari quashing the auction sale, if any, may also be issued.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, as pleaded in the petition, is that it applied to the respondent No. 1 for a loan of Rs. 15,00,000. 00 (Rupees fifteen lacs) which was ultimately sanctioned and in that connection an agreement of hypothecation was entered into on 23/07/1980 creating charge on the property of the petitioner. It is pleaded that according to the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, the loan was to be disbursed in periodical instalments and after disbursement of the loan a period of two years was contemplated as gestation period. After the gestation period the re-payment of loan was to commence with the payment of Rs. 70,000. 00. (Rupees sevently thousand) as first instalment. Thereafter, two half yearly instalments of Rs. 85,000. 00 (Rupees eighty five thousand) each were to be paid. Subsequent thereto six half yearly instalments of Rs. 1,30,000. 00 (Rupees one lac and thirty thousand) and eventually in the end six half yearly instalments of Rs. 80,000. 00 (Rupees eighty thousand) were stipulated to be paid. It is asserted that the respondent No. 1 did not disburse the loan as agreed upon and on account of the failure of the respondent No. 1 to disburse the loan in the manner agreed the petitioner-firm became a sick firm. Further averment is that the respondent No. 1 ignoring its own lapse in disbursing the entire loan sanctioned to the petitioner started proceedings u/s. 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. 1951, hereinafter called the act and took over the possession of the petitioner firm in the year 1985. The petitioner objected the taking over the firm as being illegal. The objection of the petitioner was found to be correct and the possession of the firm was handed over back to the petitioner. However, on 29th Sept. 1989, the respondent No. 1 took over the possession of the petitioner-firm again, u/s. 29 of the Act, without giving any notice and locked its property lying in the premises. Thus, the petitioner is deprived of its property and is further prevented to carry on the business.

( 3 ) AN application dated 16/05/1990. Supported by the affidavit of Sri Shrawan Kumar, Deputy Senior Manager (Law), U. P. Financial Corporation, Regional Officer, 5-Ashok Marg, Allahabad, on behalf of the U. P. Financial Corporation, praying for dismissal of the writ petition, was moved on 16/05/1990. Affidavit discloses that pursuant to the proceedings u/ S. 29 of the Act, the possession of the petitioner-industrial concern had already been taken as long back as on 18/11/1989. It also reveals that the proceedings u/ S. 29 of the Act against the petitioner had been challenged in this court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18005 of 1987, M/s Govardhan Kagaj Udyog v. U. P. Financial Corporation and others. In the said writ petition as order dated 17/12/1987 was passed by a Division Court consisting of Honble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma and Honble Mr. Justice Palok Basu in the following terms :"we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Having given the matter our anxious consideration, we are of the opinion that in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner may be given