IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7191 of 2010. Decided on: 19.11.2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pawan Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …..Respondents. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to4 : Mr.R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i). A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 4 or any other Officer to conduct an independent and impartial inquiry with regard to the fraud committed by the respondent bank officials in connivance with the respondent No. 7 and 8 as they exercised their official powers in a wrong manner to cause unlawful gain to the respondent No.7 and 8 and the same caused the petitioner a huge loss, keeping in view of facts and circumstances of present case. (ii). Issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus further directing the respondent No. 1 to 4 attach the property to the share belonging to the respondent No.7 as the respondent No.7 in connivance of the respondent bank officials committed fraud and exceed the credit limit and now the bank officials are behind the property of petitioner and admittedly the bank officials failed to take any steps to recover the due amount from the borrower/respondent No.7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that unless an independent and impartial inquiry is conducted into the factual matrix of the whole transaction, 2 interest of justice will not be met. The Tribunal has been set up to go into these aspects only. If there is any such fraud or mistake in the transaction, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and it being a Tribunal has to look into all those aspects while taking the decision. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the liberty of the petitioner to approach and apprise the Debt Recovery Tribunal regarding all his grievances on facts. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma), Judge. November 19, 2010. (cr/lsp)