The Financial Corporation had the right to recover the dues under S. 29 independently of the proceedings under S. 31, and the petitioners' dilatory conduct did not entitle them to any sympathy.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS/appellants filed Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing communication dated 10-4-2000 (Annexure-P/30) whereby the petitioners have been informed that their mortgaged assets shall be sold for recovery of outstanding dues in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent M. P. Financial Corporation.

( 2 ) THE petitioners were advanced a term-loan of Rs. 28. 45 lacs in the year 1980. The amount was disbursed in between the period 1981 to 1983. the M. P. Financial Corporation took possession of the mortgaged assets on 7-4-2000 in exercise of powers under S. 29 of the Act. The dues against the petitioners as on 1-1-2000, according to the M. P. Financial Corporation, is Rs. 2. 40 crores, inclusive of interest. The sale of the mortgaged assets was advertised in daily newspapers Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat on 4-6-2000. the prospective purchaser has offered Rs. 22. 5 lacs. Thereafter, the M. P. Financial Corporation vide letter dated 6-7-2000 informed the petitioner about the said offer and asked them that in case they were willing to offer better price and terms, they can furnish the same. The petitioners were granted 10 days' time to do so.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge has granted time to the petitioners to submit their offer on or before 27th of July, 2000. The order was passed on 18/07/2000. This order passed by the single Judge in W. P. No. 2717/2000 has been assailed in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

( 4 ) THE petitioners' unit became sick in the year 1984. Procedings under S. 31 of the M. P. Financial Corporations Act were initiated by the Corporation. However, the Corporation also invoked the provisions of M. P. Lokdhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ka Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. It is further stated in the appeal that the M. P. Financial Corporation filed an application to withdraw the application filed under S. 31 of the Act reserving the right to take action under S. 29. The application was allowed in part and against the Directors proceedings under S. 31 was kept pending by the District Judge. Thereafter, in Civil Revision No. 1032/96, this court on 11-10-1996 ordered that the application shall stand withdrawn even against the Directors. Thus, the application under S. 31 of the Financial Corporations Act filed by the corporation stood withdrawn and the order passed in C. R. 1032/96 has attained finality.

( 5 ) NEGOTIATIONS for settlement failed. Thereafter, notice of demand were issed under the provisions of M. P. Lokdhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ka Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. Challenging the notices, W. P. No. 3634/99 was filed before this court. Proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Certificate commenced by the Tahsildar Raipur were stayed on 8-9-1999.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that Proviso to S. 5 of the M. P. Lokdhan Adhiniyam, 1987 provides that the authority to which the sum is due shall take recorse to the provisions of only one law at a time for recovery of the dues. It is contended that once the proceedings under the Adhiniyam is pending, recourse to proceedings under the provisions of State Financial Corporations Act is not permissible. It is also submitted that efforts should have been made to revive the unit as it is viable and the proceedings under S. 29 and consequent action of putting the unit to sale and asking for better offer are bad in law as the value of the petitioners assets is more than one crore rupees and the action taken by the respondents violates the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, (1993) 2 SCC 279. It is submitted that the proceedings are initiated in order to thwart the effect of stay granted by this Court in W. P. No. 364/99.

( 7 ) THE respondent M. P. Financial Corporation in its reply submitted that the petitioners were asked to submit a concrete