IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1681 of 2007 SATYA NARAYAN SINGH SON OF TAPESHWAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANIARBA, P.S. KHAJAULI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BRANCH MADHUBANI NEAR SURI HIGH SCHOOL, WARD NO. 6, P.S. & DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ----------- 3 24/02/2010 By order dated 22.10.2001 Certificate Case No. 707 of 1992-93 filed by the State Bank of India was allowed to rest after the Certificate Officer was satisfied that a sum of Rs.1,78,227/- has been deposited by the petitioner who is the Certificate Debtor as against the claim of Rs.1,74,744/-. In fact, it was held that an excess amount of Rs.3,483/- has been deposited by the petitioner. Despite closing of the certificate case on the basis of the above findings, till date the Bank is not issuing No Dues Certificate, registration paper of the tractor, owner book etc. to the petitioner. Request was made as far back as on 7.2.2002 but on one pretext or the other as well as even at the cost of threat, the Bank is not willing to honour the order of the Certificate Officer. It was in this background that the petitioner decided to file the present writ application seeking a direction. - 2 - The stand of the respondent Bank in the counter affidavit is that in terms of the provisions of Section 17 of the Public Demand Recovery Act (shortly the Act) the Bank was entitled for payment of interest and the cost of litigation from the time the Certificate was signed till the payment was made. This factor had not been taken into consideration by the Certificate Officer in its order. Review application as provided under section 63 of the Act has been filed and the same is still pending adjudication. From a perusal of the order of the Certificate Officer the default lies at the door step of the Bank. They neither co-operated in the certificate proceeding nor appeared and assisted and with the facts and statements having been made the matter was decided. It is their inaction on which they want to take advantage and the reason or ground on which they are holding on to the claim against the petitioner is the review application. The Court is satisfied that just like the certificate proceeding, the review application is only a ploy because since 2002 there is no evidence on record that the review application was ever pressed or effort was made to get it - 3 - decided. In view of the matrix of facts discussed above, the respondent Bank is directed not to take any co-ercive action against the petitioner, release all the documents in favour of the petitioner of the tractor but all that will be subject to the final decision in the review application and it is for the Bank to decide as to when it would like to press the review application. Pendency of the review application will not come in the way of the petitioner claiming what he has claimed in this writ application. This writ application is disposed of with the above direction. Let the respondent Bank do the needful within six weeks from the date of production communication of a copy of this order. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)