JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

1. The Corporation Bank and its officers have assailed the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the WP No.29398(W) of 2017.

2. The writ petitioner, respondent herein, successfully participated in E-auction for sell of an immovable property undertaken by the appellant No.1 Bank through its officers under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter SARFAESI Act). On receipt of consideration price fixed by auction, the appellant/bank issued sell certificate in favour of the respondent in respect of the said property in question. The said sale was free from all encumbrances. Subsequent to his purchase, the respondent was charged for payment of property tax and maintenance tax in respect of the said property for the period prior to his auction purchase payable to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. Contending, inter alia, that he was not liable to any of such tax or charge levied for the period prior to his sale, the respondent moved this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing and/or commending the respondent authorities to set aside and/or rescind and/or cancel and/or recall the letter dated 26th October, 2017 wherein and whereunder the appellant/bank communicated to him that the bank was not liable to any outstanding dues towards the property tax or maintenance charges claimed by the corporation with further writ of mandamus directing the bank authorities to reimburse the amount of Rs.2,72,745/- paid by the petitioner towards outstanding property to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation with interest coupled with a writ of certiorari and other consequential reliefs.

3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ application vide order dated 18th January, 2019 quashing the written communication issued by the appellant bank in favour of the respondent. Consequently, the appellant/bank was held liable to reimburse the sum which the respondent paid in favour of Kolkata Municipal Corporation towards property tax.

4. The learned Judge in the trial court whilst coming to such conclusion, made the following observations:-

"The sale certificate issued by the bank is in accordance with the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The relevant portion of the sale certificate states that the sale was free from all encumbrances known to the secured creditor. The correspondence produced on record established that, the bank was aware of the arrears on account of maintenance charges in respect of the property concerned prior to the sale. The bank claims that, it was not aware of the property tax due. As noted above, had the bank acted diligently as a prudent person, it would have known that property taxes were due. Moreover, the petitioner did not enjoy the benefit of the property prior to the date of sale. The bank is, therefore, liable to bear the property tax dues for the period up to the date of the sale"

"The point of maintainability raised is without substances. The purchaser of an immovable property is before the writ court for the failure of an instrumentality with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The writ the petition is maintainable.

5. Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants at the outset submits that the writ petition seeking the reimbursement of the money paid to liquidate outstanding property tax to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation is in the nature of a money claim and hence in the given circumstances, the writ court ought not to have directed payment of money by reimbursement, more so when there is no statutory duty on the part of the appellant, corporation bank to liquidate such outstanding Municipal Taxes prior to effecting sell in exercise of its power under the SARFAESI Act 2002.

6. Mr. Mukherjee next refers to a report of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs.