IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH^ WRIT PETITION N0. r2- f4o OF 2006 ilils R' PETITIONER ^ ^y^: ^o:.*iTl ..- yft-v\r-'?--"" ..••-"'"cW"^^.^-"" c^-.'"^^-'" t<&s' 'A--" &»' RESPONDENTS 1. ^ 2. ^;^>^.\^ }^\\^^ !:='==:;a^ :RM!'?:":~'-». .-"•, ?~a-< .-. \ "-*'i^ 4R,3Rfc/, V%^ 3. v .. 4. J H x"^^ ^ltf1%. •^. ^."'^•"•w.^/'".,!*^'1; "^' ^S^^'yS'^S^e >^s^' Amit Singh Deo, Son of Shri Ajit Pratap Singh Deo, aged about 28 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Village Lakhanpur, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS The Branch Manager, District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Ambikapur, Branch Udaipur; District Surguja (C.G.). The Sales Officer, District Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Ambikapur, Branch Udaipur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Collector, District Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.). The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The In-charge Officer of Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 sn^rwf^iH; (WT3TR5Tsnil» t'- *n*1MI Sh*IT<» 3^ •^|i|lc|'i<, SlTflu'IS, Kl<-IWy •*rt •>«»•••'* •**»**1>***^ W^200 3il^<i ><l<n (lyil^lvT) w<nw(if?(T3n^T 26.9.2006 Siat. Hamida Siddiqut Shri Raieev Bhaiat, Shri Sushil Dubey, $. and 5. Areuiaents. heard. Order dictated as folldiws: OlRAL ORDER By fhis writ petitiort Constitytion of India. the i|i order dated 01.4.2006 Assistant Resistrar. Co-Of Sareuia fAnnexiireP-1). Btt has disinissed tlie auolicatlt vehicles namelv oue Motor one Car bearine Resn.No. Seizure Mem.o dated 23.3.: T'he contention of led the aforesaid authorit^7 \vai vehicles were seized was Ajit Pratap Suieh and thef Detitioner. fherefore. these it recovei'v of the loaa amouull seizure was bad m ]aw. Thd fhe concemed authorit\? 01.4.2006 was nassed. It| p^ssed antl tiltlfcl'fl'l ttlKdTfffe^lRfWK ^isri^iTsn^T ;. counsel for the petitioner. lunsel for respondents ao.l & 2. ovt. Advocate for rescondents no.3. 4 2(1)06 filed under Article 226/227 of the letitioner has challenged the validity of m Case No. 10/06-07 by the berative Societies. Aiabikauur. Distt. the aforesaid order. the said autlioritv bn of fhe oetitioner for dischareins his ICvcle Hero Honda C.G.15/E/0760 and C. 0.15 ZD 1201 which vsere seized bv fUed as Annexure P-5. Imed counsel for ftie oetitioner before that fhe loaa case ia whicb fhe said ^ the father of the oetitioner namelv fee vehicles stand ui the name of the tehicles should not have been seized for ozitstanduig against his fafher and fhe aforesaid contention was neeatived bv tl ultiniatelv the imnuened orderdated was held bv the concemed authorihr_ aeAinst c? XI-HC-78 sn^T^rR-ficb cl^TT 3:n^?T ^i^i<t) w 3^'^iraRW, ®Tnyi|6,fsiciit<y *TTWTT9iWeh .w.f..f?.^ o (o-< ^200 3<i^i'i iiain (l^3^8T) Wt[TWd1%(T3n^T 2- ruortdaeed that siace the entire the borrower on the riaruesl oetitioner i.e., son of the -show that fhe vehicles wert therefore. fhe vehicles werd uroperty of the ioiat Hindiji Hiadu Faiiulv can be seizet one ofthe nieinbers offhe iitii aforesaid application filedl vehicles. the concemed statement on 28.4.2006. Retum ou behalfofrt has been contended in tht asainst the oetiti.oner was India for recoverv of fhe said Baak to the petitionej Droceedines aaaiiist the on separatelv aaainst fhe The vehicle of the oetitiori recoverv of the loan amounlt the Central Baak oflndia 6f the uetitioaer's fafherl Panchnanw. showiag the ffied by fhe respondents asj Annexure R-1 / 2 has alsd has been shown to be »i<iTci<fl-i*iiti<iTfftec^<Ri«i< ^TSI^TSIlSsT procertv has been transferred bv of persons of his fanuly and since the bbrrower could not ffle anv docuiaent to purchased froin his persQnal incoine. riehtly seized holdins them to be the Faniilv aad the oropertv7 of the ioiat tl for satisfaction of the loan taken bv iitiiat Htudu fairulv. After reiection of fhe for release/discharee of fhe above authoritv fixed the case for filiag written :spondents no. 1 & 2 has been filed. It retura that one recoven' proceediae lalso initiated bv fhe Ceutral Bank of losln ainount which was disbursed bv fhe Both the recoven- proceedings i.e.. petltioner as weU as his father were goiiig p^titioner and his .fafher simultaneouslv. ter was seized bv Naib TahsUdar for recoverable aeaiast the petitioner for dnd not for recoverv of the loan ainount In support of this contention, a sdizure of these vehicles, has also been Annexure R-1/1. Another docuiuent ^ been filed bv fhe said respondents. It bv the recoven7 ofiicer j^e., Naib written Gcf XI-HC-78 tfTHi;Trai*<l<:S 3^ •<<I<<ICT<I, a-rflu'is, Riditiy • V~V **)>**•*'****•***•«•*<*^; 200 (, 3T1^?T T3W (({^fg^tT) 3n^T?iTR-fi* (PIT3n^Tst>l[it] SRnwgffersn^r -3 »hi<<F(-i<l1-< *ii*iciTfftecA'<Ri«;i< ^srf^iTa.n^r petitloilier Tahsildar, Lakhaanur and it amouat of loan against the oih him under certain settlenien^ objection in. reteasiag the veyi loau taken bv the preseat petiti During the course of counsel for the netitioner petitioner so seized bv fhe iti Suprudncuna to fhe oetitioner of vehicles on Sutjrudnama 11 leanied counsel for the filed bv respondents no. l & 21 quashed. as ia fact. accordiae 2, fhese vehicles were not petltiouer. Be that as it niay, now of the petitioner were not pursuance of fhe loan case petitioner. Thercfore, now talcins further action aud sincel tlie loan case pertainine to imougned order passed bv fhe so inade does not camr anv vehicles itselfwere not seized petitioner's father. there is no force which is ia relation to thel arduiuents. tbat shows that the entire outstaadiae :sent petitioner has been reoaid bv aad in this situation. he has no licles seized in. connection with the lioner. ., it was told to fhis court bv the aforesaid vehicles of the scovery officer have been eiveu on ^nd uow the relief regardins release [as becoiae iniructuous. However. subinits fhat ui view of the reclv L the order dated 01.4.2006 be also to the version of respondents no. 1 & in the loan case of father of s^ized tilie position einerees that the vehicles s^ized bv respondents no. 1 & 2 ia Ipending aeainst fhe father of the n^fhing renipins in this petition for the vehicles have not been seized ia tlie father of fhe petitioner, the |Asst. Registrar iustiiviag fhe seizure Bieaniaa. When it is stated that the |n pursuance of the loaa case of fhe iustification ia keepma that oider ia loan. case ofhis fafber. o, -- f7^ XI-HC-78 HTWptTiaiw^ 7S( •<ll<IICt<l, ®Tn«'l<c,RclKiy Jr?.~f..ta.°...'hi/iPWi; 200^ 3<l^l laf) ('^fg^^T) sn^T^iT^IH? (PIT 311^1' Shfiqi l^) CTaiW dfer snsRT ^ faclls In viewofthe above view of fhe retum filed bv oider uassed bv the Assistaal quashed. No charae shaU be above said tevo vehicles bfthe ofhis fafher. The petition stands However, fhe resoondent-s coraDlete fhe recoverv oetitioner ia.deoendentlv.in ad C.c. as oer rules. and circumstaaces. particulariv in rEJspondents no.l & 2. fhe impuened Registrar dated 1.4.2006 is herebv Iheld to have been created over fhe betitioner pertamine to fhe loan case aUdwed authbrities proc^edines ^rafcpfrr WRTF ff fetfl-rfSRzn- ^sif^Tsn^r to the extent indiGated above. shaB be free to prosecute and aeainst the father of the •ondaiice witfa law. _(^, - Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.