Back
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Akhil Bandhu Saha
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others
W. P. No. 36440 (W) of 2013 (Appellate Side)
Decided on : 20-03-2014
The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Court feeling aggrieved by measures taken by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ektiasal Branch, respondent no. 8, in terms of provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the SARFAESI Act). The writ petition was dismissed on September 24, 2004, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to apply before the tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the bank was directed to release the household articles of the petitioner. Several contempt proceedings followed thereafter initiated by the petitioner, but the same were disposed of without granting effective relief to him. A second round of litigation started with the presentation of a further writ petition. That was dismissed on July 4, 2008 on the ground that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal. The writ appeal preferred against such order was also dismissed on September 25, 2008, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law. A further writ petition, the third in the series, was presented by the petitioner with a prayer to release movable and immovable assets not hypothecated and mortgaged to the bank, to allow the petitioner to operate his locker and to give appropriate accounts of loan amount upon adjustment of matured value of fixed deposits and for other relief. The writ petition was held to be barred by principles of res judicata by a learned judge of this Court, vide judgment and order dated April 17, 2012. A writ appeal filed against the said judgment and order, however, succeeded. By its order dated April 18, 2013, an Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order impugned and directed holding of an inquiry by an officer not less than the rank of Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter the RBI). It was observed that in the event the report was favourable to the petitioner, the appropriate authority of the RBI must take appropriate steps.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court feeling aggrieved by measures taken by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ektiasal Branch, respondent no. 8, in terms of provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the SARFAESI Act). The writ petition was dismissed on September 24, 2004, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to apply before the tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the bank was directed to release the household articles of the petitioner. Several contempt proceedings followed thereafter initiated by the petitioner, but the same were disposed of without granting effective relief to him. A second round of litigation started with the presentation of a further writ petition. That was dismissed on July 4, 2008 on the ground that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal. The writ appeal preferred against such order was also dismissed on September 25, 2008, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law. A further writ petition, the third in the series, was presented by the petitioner with a prayer to release movable and immovable assets not hypothecated and mortgaged to the bank, to allow the petitioner to operate his locker and to give appropriate accounts of loan amount upon adjustment of matured value of fixed deposits and for other relief. The writ petition was held to be barred by principles of res judicata by a learned judge of this Court, vide judgment and order dated April 17, 2012. A writ appeal filed against the said judgment and order, however, succeeded. By its order dated April 18, 2013, an Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order impugned and directed holding of an inquiry by an officer not less than the rank of Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter the RBI). It was observed that in the event the report was favourable to the petitioner, the appropriate authority of the RBI must take appropriate steps.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition, any debate on the social justice aspect of equal opportunity and access to legal remedies would be entirely academic. The Court also found that the petitioner had not made any application for grant of legal services before any authority and unless his prayer is refused, the stage is absolutely premature for a detailed discussion on the issue as to whether ‘legal services’ covers grant of financial aid or not for travel and accommodation purpose.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition? 2. Whether the petitioner has made any application for grant of legal services before any authority?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition, any debate on the social justice aspect of equal opportunity and access to legal remedies would be entirely academic. The Court also found that the petitioner had not made any application for grant of legal services before any authority and unless his prayer is refused, the stage is absolutely premature for a detailed discussion on the issue as to whether ‘legal services’ covers grant of financial aid or not for travel and accommodation purpose.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without order for costs. The petitioner was free to work out his remedy in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above, if so advised.
1. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court feeling aggrieved by measures taken by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ektiasal Branch, respondent no. 8, in terms of provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter the SARFAESI Act). The writ petition was dismissed on September 24, 2004, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to apply before the tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the bank was directed to release the household articles of the petitioner. Several contempt proceedings followed thereafter initiated by the petitioner, but the same were disposed of without granting effective relief to him.
2. A second round of litigation started with the presentation of a further writ petition. That was dismissed on July 4, 2008 on the ground that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the tribunal. The writ appeal preferred against such order was also dismissed on September 25, 2008, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy in accordance with law.
3. A further writ petition, the third in the series, was presented by the petitioner with a prayer to release movable and immovable assets not hypothecated and mortgaged to the bank, to allow the petitioner to operate his locker and to give appropriate accounts of loan amount upon adjustment of matured value of fixed deposits and for other relief. The writ petition was held to be barred by principles of res judicata by a learned judge of this Court, vide judgment and order dated April 17, 2012. A writ appeal filed against the said judgment and order, however, succeeded. By its order dated April 18, 2013, an Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order impugned and directed holding of an inquiry by an officer not less than the rank of Deputy General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India (hereafter the RBI). It was observed that in the event the report was favourable to the petitioner, the appropriate authority of the RBI must take appropriate steps.
4. In compliance with such order, Mr. Chandrajit Sahoo, Deputy General Manager, RBI was appointed inquiry officer. While Mr. Sahoo was seized of the inquiry, the bank approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition (hereafter the said SLP) challenging the order dated April 18, 2013. The said SLP is reportedly pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for, inter alia, the following main relief:
“a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents specially the respondent no. 2 to arrange accommodation including food and also the up down railway fairs as the petitioner being a citizen of India able to attend before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”
5. It is claimed by the petitioner that as a result of the protracted proceedings by and between him and the bank, his resources have been drained to such an extent that he is in acute financial distress and has no means to travel to New Delhi to contact the advocate thereat (who has been requested by Mr. Goutam De, an advocate practising in this Court, to defend the petitioner, pro bono) and to explain to him his side of the story so that the said SLP filed by the bank is dismissed. It is further claimed that the petitioner has been running from pillar to post to secure funds for his travel to New Delhi to defend the said SLP but all such attempts have proved abortive. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has claimed an order on the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, as noted above.
6. The writ petition was moved by the petitioner in person before me on January 6, 2014. Having regard to his unintelligible submissions, I had requested Mr. Pratik Dhar and Mr. Supratim Dhar, learned advocates to assist the petitioner. On the next few days, Mr. Pratik Dhar and his team of learned juniors as well as Mr. Gout
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
