IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6181 of 2005 ----------- Shatrughan Singh, son of late Indradeo Singh, resident of village Rampur Diyara, P.S. Maner, District Patna … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Co-operative Societies, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Manager-cum-Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Patna District Patna 4. The Branch Manager, Land Development Bank, Danapur Police Station, Danapur, District Patna. 5. Managing Director, Land Development Bank at Budha Marg, Patna District Patna … Respondents ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondents : None. ----- 03/ 09.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.07.2004 passed by the Registrar, Co- operative in Misc. Case No. 165 of 2003 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and also for directing the authorities for auction of the seized tractor at the value of the year 1999 when the tractor was seized and also for directing respondent-authorities to calculate the interest over the loan in question at the rate of simple interest and also for directing them to give relaxation in payment method to respondent-Bank on instalment basis and also for directing that the interest of loan should be exempt from the date of seizure of tractor and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that a proceeding was - 2 - initiated for realization of loan taken for purchase of a tractor, which was subsequently seized, whereafter auction notice was given. It is also stated that the said notice was absolutely illegal as the tractor’s value was not adjusted in the loan amount and the tractor was allowed to remain seized for all the said period. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues on the basis of provisions of law and he relies upon a decision of this Court in case of Jainath Prasad vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1999(3) P.L.J.R. 227. 4. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the claim of the petitioner was that his tractor was not kept properly after seizure and hence its condition had deteriorated although the Bank was entitled to auction sale the same and realize the amount, which could have been adjusted in the loan amount. 5. However, it was the specific case of the respondents in the court below that the tractor would have been auction sold but the petitioner himself had given in writing on 08.08.2001 that he would be depositing Rs.1,25,000.00 to save the tractor from auction sale and hence the Bank waited for him, but the petitioner did not deposit the amount. In the said circumstances only due to the lapse on the part of the petitioner himself, the Bank was fully entitled to take appropriate action in this regard as the petitioner had given false undertaking only to delay the matter with regard to auction sale. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Registrar has passed the impugned order, in which this Court does - 3 - not find any illegality. So far the case law relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, it does not cover either the facts or the principles applicable to the instant case and hence the said decision cannot govern this case. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)