BHUPEN PURAKAIT Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRIEVANCES raised in the present writ application may briefly be stated as follows: on being approached by the writ petitioner, the respondent No. S/icici bank advanced loan for an amount of Rs. 6,68,000/- on 7. 2. 2007. The writ petitioner was made to sign some blank papers and printed forms for getting his loan duly processed and sanctioned. He purchased the vehicle being No. WB-41c-4398 at a price of Rs. 7, 72,349/ -. He got discount of Rs. 30,000/- thus, requiring to pay an amount of Rs. 7,42,349/ -. He made down payment of Rs. 74,349/-and the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,68,000/- was granted as loan. The petitioner was duly paying instalments at the rate of Rs:15,126/- but due to severe ailment of his wife, there had been interruption. He was served with a demand notice dated 30th June, 2007 whereby respondent/icici Bank asked for payment of Rs. 11,786/- only. The vehicle was picked up from the route on 18th August, 2007 by hired muscleman of such respondent No. 5. The petitioner rushed to the office of the respondent No. 5 on 7. 9. 2007. He took with him the demanded amount of Rs. 11,786/- as well us a sum of Rs. 15,126/- being the instalment amount for a month. The petitioner during his visit to the office of the respondent No. 5 on 7. 9. 2007 was threatened with dire consequences by the bank officials. He was asked to pay off the entire loan amount which according to them was Rs. 7,10,096/ -. He was further told that unless the said amount was paid, the vehicle would be sold out.

(2.) THE petitioner went to the local police station on 7. 9. 2007 but he was not entertained. He was, thus, left with no option but to send a written complaint by registered post with A/d addressed to I. C. , Karaya Police Station and the copy of the same was sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police, detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta. The police authority chose not to take any action. Such calculated indifferences on the part of the police authority and high-handedness of the respondent No. 5 brought the petitioner to the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) IN response to this, respondent No. 4 filed an affidavit-in-opposition thereby denying all the material allegations made by the petitioner. It was categorically claimed that the writ petitioner never approached such police authority for any assistance. It was further claimed that the dispute essentially is between the two private parties i. e. , petitioner and the respondent No-5/ icic1 Bank leaving very little for the said respondent to do.