BIRENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 2.6.1997/3.6.1997 passed by the Certificate Officer, Katihar (Respondent no. 2) in Certificate Case No. 595/94 -95, contained in Annexure -3, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to repay 50% of the total amount, of loan with interest thereon at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the certificate case.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner and his co -villager Ratan Deo Mehta entered into a contract on 1.3.1993 for running a brick kiln in the name and. style of M/s Koshi Bricks. The aforesaid partnership firm was granted a loan of Rs. 4,62,000/ - by Katihar District Central Co -operative Bank Ltd. (Respondent no. 4) showing Rs. 2,20,000/ - as term loan and Rs. 2,42,000/ - as working capital. Petitioners case is that at the relevant time i.e. in the year 1993. as he was a regular student of Intermediate, the account of the firm M/s Koshi Bricks was practically operated by Ratan Deo Mehta, who was, in fact, working partner of the petitioner. A requisition vide Annexure -1 was submitted before the Certificate Officer Katihar by the Respondent -Cooperative Bank for realisation of the amount of loan to the extent of Rs. 1,42.000/ -, and on the basis of the said requisition Certificate Case No. 595/94 -95 was started. It is stated that the order dated 20.3.1995 mentions that the requisition for realisation of Rs. 1,42,100/ - was from Ratan Deo Mehta only and accordingly notice under Section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act, hereinafter referred as the Act was issued and served upon him, and on 25.4.1997 he submitted a petition under Section 9 of the Act, which was admitted for hearing. A copy of the said petition was sent to the petitioner a!so alOngwith the abstract of the order dated 25.4.1997 (Annexure -2). On 17.5.1997 petitioner submitted his reply to the petition submitted by Ratan Deo Mehta and thereafter on 2.6.1997/3.6.1997 the impugned order (Annexure -3) was passed.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 3. and 4, in which it is stated that the account of the firm M/s Koshi Bricks has been operated by both the partners with joint signature through cheques and the account was opened on request of both and all the documents were executed by the petitioner and the account has also been operated with full signature of both the partners, and the only intention of the petitioner is to linger the matter.