SANTOSH KUMAR NARNOLIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I had heard the parties on 11 -4 -1997, and had indicated an order in Court. When the order was placed before me in draft, I felt the need to hear the parties further, as to the directions to be given in the writ petition. Accordingly, the matter was placed before me under the heading to be mentioned today and I have again heard counsel for the parties. The writ petition is disposed of by an order recorded separately. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the proprietor of the firm M/s Sri lakshmi Textiles. It is not disputed that the Central Bank of India, Dumka Branch (respondent no. 4 herein) had extended to the said firm a cash credit facility of Rs. 50,000/ -, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 75,000/ -. Since the firm failed to discharge its liability to the respondent -Bank, Certificate Case No. 243/94 -95 for realisation of Rs. 2,10,149.74 paise was initiated against the petitioner. In the said proceeding the petitioner filed his objection under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, and prayed that he may be directed to liquidate the dues outstanding in monthly instalments of Rs. 500/ -. The Certificate Officer directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,000/ - in the first instance and thereafter the question of payment in instalments may be considered. It is also not disputed that the petitioner deposited the aforesaid sum of Rs. 10,000/ -, and again renewed his prayer for fixing of instalment of Rs. 500/ - per month. The prayer of the petitioner was not accepted by the Certificate Officer, who directed him to deposit at the rate of Rs. 1250/ - per month for the time being, till the Certificate Officer considered the point -wise reply of the Bank to the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner started depositing at the rate of Rs. 1250/ - per month. After considering the rejoinder tiled by the Bank to the objection filed by the petitioner, respondent no. 3 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2200/ - per month by his order dated 6 -12 -1995. It also appears from the order of the Certificate Officer dated 6 -12 -1995 that the petitioner had appeared through his counsel and admitted the dues claimed by the Bank. The petitioner, therefore, started depositing at the rate of Rs. 2200/ - per month. The petitioner was, however, surprised to receive a notice on 8 -11 -96 informing him that the facility granted to the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues in instalments had been withdrawn, and he was directed to deposit at least Rs. 50,000/ - per month with the concerned Bank. The said intimation received by the petitioner has been annexed as Annexure -5, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank, and it is contended that the Bank had objected to instalments being fixed at the rate of Rs. 1250/ -, as that was not even sufficient to cover the statutory rate of interest payable by the certificate debtor. However, by order dated 6.12.1995 the Certificate Officer had directed the petitioner to deposit at the rate of Rs. 2200/ - per month, which was very low in view of the fact that it was not even sufficient to cover the liability by way of interest, which was payable at the rate of 12 percent per annum on the entire certificate dues. The grievance of the Bank is that if outstanding dues were to be repaid in instalments of Rs. 2200/ - per month, the liability could never be discharged, because monthly instalment fixed by the Certificate Officer was hardly sufficient to meet the liability of interest which accrued on the amount due to the Bank. It was under these' circumstances that the Certificate Officer reviewed his earlier order under Section 63 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, when he realised that he committed a mistake and his order was not consistent with the Government circulars and directives in this regard.