SAWAR MAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Article 15 (inserted by Bihar Act of 1974) of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, is beyond the competence of the State Legislature, is the significant common question in this set of 6 writ petitions, placed for an authoritative decision by a Division Bench.

(2.) The matrix of facts may be briefly noted from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3310 of 1985 (Sawar Mal Choudhary v. The State Bank of India and others). The petitioner purchased a truck under the educated employment scheme, which was financed partly by the State Bank of India, Katihar Branch, by raising a loan of rupees one lac. An agreement was duly executed between the petitioner and the State Bank of India, through a hypothecation deed and it is admitted that the petitioner had made certain payments towards the loan advanced by the respondent State Bank of India. Apparently, on the failure of the petitioner to make repayment of the loan, the respondent Bank sent a requisition, under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the 26th April, 1984, on the basis of which a Certificate Case No. 5 of 1984 was registered. The service of notice under S.7 was duly made on the petitioner and he filed objections challenging the authority of the Bank to realise the loan in question. All the objections were rejected by the Certificate Officer, and an order for issuance of warrant for arrest against the petitioner was passed on the 10th of November, 1984. Allegations are made that the Bank had failed to pay the requisite court-fees in accordance with the provisions of S.5 of the Act, and that the requisition, contained in Annexure-'1', was not duly filled up, as prescribed.

(3.) The somewhat hypertechnical sketchy averments made in the original writ petition stand stoutly controverted in the counter-affidavit of the respondent State Bank of India. Therein it has been averred that the requisite court-fee amount of Rs. 4,929.80 paise has been duly paid and that the requisition in Form 2 was duly sent to the Certificate Officer by the Branch Manager, duly filled in, and signed. The allegations in paragraphs Nos. 10 to 13 of the writ petition have been denied. Similarly, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the District Certificate Officer, Katihar, the allegations in the Writ petition have been controverted.