JUDGMENT
P. K. Mohanty, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this Writ Application to quash Annexure-10, the sale order dated 23.2.1994 and Annexure-7, seizure of the petitioner’s unit under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act.
2. The factual aspects of the case are almost admitted so far as the petitioner’s loan and non-payment thereof is concerned. It appears from Annexure-6 dated 7.11.1992, the letter of the petitioner addressed to the Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Rourkela Branch, that possession of the unit “Sahoo Chemicals”, manufacturing sodium silicate, B-2, Industrial Estate, Rourkela-4 along with land, building, shed and other constructions along with a list of equipments and current assets was handed over to the State Financial Corporation with a request to sell the unit along with the equipments etc. at a competitive and reasonable price acceptable to it. The advertisement for sale of the unit was published in newspaper “The Prajatantra” dated 27.10.1992. The advertisement reads as follows :
Sahoo Chemicals, Rourkela, manufacturer of Sodium Silicate located in Udit Nagar Industrial Estate area on approximately half acre of land with fully equipped plant and machinery in running condition houses in factory shed and two stories pucca building for office and guest house is for immediate sale. Contact
Shri S. N. Sahoo,
Shop No. 6, Sector-5 market, Rourkela-2
Phone-0661-5206 (9 a.m. to 9 p.m.)
The petitioner in its letter dated 9.3.1994 (Annexure-11) addressed to the Managing Director, O.S.F.C. intimated the Corporation, inter alia, as follows :
3. On our request you advertised in daily newspapers fixed date of opening the tender on 11.3.1993 and we were communicated vide your letter No. OSFC/RECO/6648/91 -92 dated 2.3.1993 to be present at IDCO House, Bhubaneswar. At the time of opening the bids to take our consent whether the highest price so obtained is acceptable to us.
4. Nobody had tendered against the advertisement when the bids were opened on 11.3.1993 and so the deal was closed. You were personally present at the tender committee meeting at Bhubaneswar on 11.3.1993.
3. The Corporation in its letter dated 23.2.1994 (Annexure-10) addressed to Mr. N. C. Minz, the purchaser, intimated that his offer has been accepted subject to conditions laid therein. The possession of the unit was taken over by the purchaser on 15.4.1994. The possession letter is Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. The petitioner had moved this Court in the present Writ Application and by order dated 18.4.1994 status quo as on that date in respect of the land and the building was directed to be maintained. Subsequently by order dated 10.5.1995 the status quo order was vacated by the Division Bench recording a finding that the land and the building had been mortgaged as revealed from the mortgage deed produced before the Court by the Corporation.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the Petitioner wanted the unit, i.e. the equipments and machinery to be sold but not the land and the building over which the unit situate. A perusal of the letter dated 7.11.1992 (Annexure-6) of the petitioner addressed to the Corporation clearly indicates that the Unit including the land and the building was handed over to the Corporation for sale. The advertisement made by the Corporation for sale of the factory in Annexure-8 which has been quoted earlier also clearly indicates that the unit, plant and machinery housed in the factory shed and two storied pucca building for office and guest house over approximately half acre of land was sought to be sold. In such view of the matter, we do not find any substance in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intended to sell the machinery and equipments only and not the land and building. It further appears from the order dated 10.5.1995 passed by this Court that the Division Bench on perusal of the mortgage deed produced by the O.S.F.C. found that the land and building had been mortgaged in favour of the O.S.F.C. It is apt to mention here that the petitioner in its letter dated 9.3.1994 also did not take any objection to the advertisement for sale of the land and building along with the unit.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Rao that though the worth of the unit, i.e. land, building and machinery, would be more than Rs. 44 lakhs, the same has been sold for a paltry amount of Rs. 12.5 lakhs. On verification it is found that the OSFC took all steps legally possible to sell the land, building and machinery of the unit by auction. Sale notice was also issued and published in local dailies inviting tenderers. Unfortunately, no one came forward to purchase the same. The petitioner was also called upon to arrange suitable purchaser, but he failed to do so. After observing all paraphernalia the unit was sold by negotiation fixing the sale price at Rs. 12.5 lakhs in favour of Opp. Party No. 4. Except baldly stating that the cost of the land, building and machinery would be Rs. 44 lakhs, the petitioner neither gave any offer nor arranged any purchaser. It also appears that the petitioner had advised in the newspapers inviting bidders to purchase the said unit, but in vain. In view of the aforesaid facts, the bald allegation made by the petitioner that the unit was sold by OSFC at a throw away price cannot be accepted. That apart, it appears that in the meanwhile as Opp. Party No. 4 failed to make payment the unit was once again seized by OSFC and sold to a third party. The person to whom the property has been sold and who is in possession of the same has not been impleaded as a party to this Writ Application. He being a necessary party in his absence no adjudication can be made.
6. In any view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the Writ Application to interfere with the matter, which arises out of a contract between the parties. The Writ Application is accordingly dismissed.
A.S. Naidu, J.
7. I agree.