Item No.2

05.01.2026

Court. No. 2

GB

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WPA 2278 of 2025

West Bengal Financial Corporation & Anr.

VS

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Milindo Paul,

Mr. Nabankur Paul,

Mr. Sannidhya Dutta, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Ms. Bedashruti Bose,

Mr. Subham Das,

Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh

… for the Petitioners.

Mr. Sumit Kumar,

Mr. Pretom Das … for the State.

Mr. Sankar Nath Mukherjee,

Mr. Niraj Gupta,

Ms. Sunayanan Parveen

… for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the West

Bengal Financial Corporation, alleging inaction of the police authorities. It is submitted by Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate that despite steps having been taken under Section 29(1) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’), the petitioners have not been able to take over possession of the property mortgaged to the corporation. The secured asset was sold upon permission being

granted by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court. Although, the borrower preferred an appeal, no interim protection was given to the borrowers. Rather, the appeal court had posed a question as to whether the borrowers could match the price offered by the auction purchaser. The appeal court recorded that the borrowers had submitted they could not match the price. Thus, no protective order was given to the borrowers. The appeal has been kept pending. Directions for exchange of affidavits were passed.

2. Mr. Basu relies on the decision of Pawan Beriwal versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. passed by this Court in WPA 12219 of 2023. He prays for similar order. Paragraph 11 whereof is quoted below:-

“11. Under such circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the Superintendent of Police, Birbhum to take all steps, and hand over possession to the corporation 30 days from the date of communication of this order, mandatorily and the corporation shall hand over the possession to the petitioner.”

3. Learned advocate for the borrowers submits that the notice of sale is under challenge. The calculation of the corporation was incorrect. The police authorities do not have any right to dispossess the borrowers from the property.

4. Learned advocate for the State submits that all steps were taken by the police on receipt of a complaint from the Head of the Operations of the corporation. A prosecution was filed against the persons who had been obstructing the police from taking over possession.

5. Upon exercise of power under Section 29(1) of the said Act, the corporation was entitled under the law to take over the management and possession of the property and to sell the property under Sub- Section (2). The ownership stood transferred to the auction purchaser upon sale being completed.

6. In the earlier round of litigation, a coordinate Bench was of the view that the corporation had published a public notice for holding e-auction of the secured asset. A bidder had responded to the notice. The borrowers were given an option to match up to the bid or to pay up the dues upfront. The corporation was permitted to proceed with the sale strictly in accordance with law. Time till June 25, 2025 was given to the borrowers either to match up to the bid or to pay up the dues.

7. It is an admitted position that the dues were not paid. It is also an admitted position that the borrowers could not match up to the bid. Although, an appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench, no protective order has been given. It was further recorded by the Division Bench that the learned advocate for the borrowers had submitted that they were not in a position to match up the bid offered by the sole bidder.

8. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of The Orissa State Financial Corporation & Anr. versus Smt. Sukanti Mohapatra & Ors. reported in (2002) 3 SCC 496, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the financial corp