Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. P.N. Goswami, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Md. Aslam, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. D.K. Mishra with Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsels, assisted by Mr. D. Akram, the learned counsel for respondent No. 7. Mr. K. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 was present. None appears on call for the other respondents.

2. Both the writ petitions are between the same parties. The learned Senior Counsels/Counsels for the appearing parties have jointly submitted that common facts and questions of law arise for consideration in both the writ petitions. As such, on the joint request by both sides, both the writ petitions have been heard together.

3. On 21.11.2017, when the matter was listed for admission hearing, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 had pressed for a hearing on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. It would be relevant to mention here that this Court had passed an ad-interim order dated 16.03.2017, in connection these writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 7 had filed a writ appeal, being WA 118/2017. Although the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 09.05.2017, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, however, at the request by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, they were permitted to raise the question of locus of the writ petitioner in these writ petition. Accordingly, such issue was pressed and this Court had proceeded to first hear the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 7 as the respondent No.7 had raised such preliminary issue.

CASE PROJECTED IN THE TWO WRIT PETITIONS:

4. Bereft of details, the case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner i.e. Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner Bank”), is registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. The petitioner had projected that it had provided financial assistance to (i) Abhoyjan Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ATCPL” for short), (ii) Nimodia Plantation & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.2” or R-2), and (iii) Sri Lalit Chandra Borah (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.3” or “R-3”) and Sri Puspendra Nath Borah (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.4” or “R-4”), the consecutive owners of Hautley Tea Estate, which was acknowledged by them.

5. The R-2, who was the last owner of the Hautley Tea Estate, had entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 26.09.1986 with (i) R-3 and (ii) R-4, wherein both the parties had acknowledged the dues towards the Petitioner Bank and R-2 had handed over the possession of Hautley Tea Estate to R-3 and R-4. However, since the final sale deed was not executed by R-2, the said R-3 and R-4 had instituted Title Suit No. 18/1987, inter-alia, for declaration and specific performance of the contract. By judgment and decree dated 20.04.2005, the said TS 18/1987 was decreed in favour of R-3 and R-4 and R-2 was restrained from executing any sale deed in respect of the Hautley Tea Estate in favour of any parties other than the said R-3 and R-4. Against the said judgment and decree, R-2 had preferred an appeal before this Court, being RFA No. 106/2005. It had been stated at the Bar that the said appeal was pending for adjudication without any interim order.

6. In the meanwhile, Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent No.1” or “R-1”) had filed O.A. No. 21/1997 before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “DRT, Guwahati”), wherein recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.22,67,139.64 was issued. Before any recovery could take place, R-3 had filed W.P.(C) No. 10352/2003 before this Court and the Petitioner Bank herein had filed W.P.(C) No. 10375/2003 before this Co