CHANDAN TIARI Vs. BALAGERIA CENTRAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition dated March 10th, 2008 is questioning the sale notice issued by the first respondent, a central co-operative bank registered under the provisions of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, dated March 3rd, 2008 notifying that his vehicle previously seized by the bank would be publicly auctioned.

(2.) Mr. Roy, counsel for the bank, raises the question of maintainability of the writ petition. He refers me to para 4 where the petitioner has stated that previously questioning the decision of the bank to auction the same vehicle publicly he moved W.P. No. 12199 (W) of 2002, and that writ petition was not entertained on the ground that his remedy, if any, was available under section 95 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. It is submitted that accordingly the petitioner instituted a dispute case in which the competent arbitrator made award. It is further submitted that subsequently the petitioner instituted another dispute case that was dismissed for default, and that for his failure to repay the loan utilising which he acquired the vehicle, now the bank has initiated the sale proceedings and decided to auction the vehicle.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have argued regarding application of the provisions of chapter 13 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 to the proceedings initiated by the bank. It is not necessary for me to decide the question, since the petitioner's remedy, if any, will be only under section 95 under which he previously instituted as many as two dispute cases involving the same vehicle. Counsel for the petitioner relies on S.S. Rana Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Anr, (2006)11 SCC 634. By referring me to para, 18 of the report he submits that since the bank has failed to follow the statutory provisions, the writ petition is maintainable. In my view, the decision is of no assistance. The respondent bank is not a co-operative society created under any statute.