IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13128 of 2007 BISHUN DEV PRASAD Versus THE BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ors. ----------- 3 5.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Issuance of letter no. 101 dated 13.5.2006 contained in annexure-2 addressed to the petitioner by so called Branch Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation posted at Patna was the immediate provocation for the petitioner to seek shelter of the Court. By virtue of the said communication the respondents have threatened action against the petitioner including attachment and sale of certain landed property for failure of repayment of loan taken by one Raj Narayan Prasad. Petitioner wants quashing of this communication and appropriate direction to the respondents. After filing of the writ application the respondents filed their counter affidavit and they have accepted that there was a kind of omission or mistake committed by the officer concerned in the given background to the present dispute. Way back when a proceeding was initiated against one Raj Narayan Prasad, the borrower, he challenged the said action in a writ application, namely, CWJC No. 2600 of 1991. The Division Bench of the Court decided the issue by a well considered order dated 20th August, 1992. From perusal of paragraph-13 of the said decision it is evident that the petitioner has been absolved of his liability or - 2 - obligation of any kind towards the Corporation with regard to the loan taken by said Raj Narayan Prasad, There is categorical finding of the Division Bench that forgery and tampering was committed by said Raj Narayan Prasad and the petitioner therefore cannot be held to be liable for any loan including the status of a guarantor, if at all. But despite such a pronouncement having been made in the year 1992 after more than 14 years annexure-2 came to be issued against the petitioner threatening action and auction of his property. Learned counsel representing the Corporation has filed show cause on behalf of so called Branch Manger who is the author of annexure-2. He has tendered unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to the petitioner. He has expressed regret for his action. The reason for the action is stated to be communication gap and omission. It is also the stand of the counsel representing the Corporation that after issuance of the said letter no action has been taken against the petitioner and the matter is resting at that. The Court is not fully satisfied with the explanation and the stand of the respondents on the issue looking at their past performance and conduct that the innocent citizens had been harassed at the hand of the official of the Corporation without their fault. The present case is such an example. Obviously all does not seem to be well in the manner in which the official business is being transacted in the Corporation. - 3 - The Court can only caution the respondents that they need to be more careful in future in this regard and to see that no innocent citizen is harassed and compelled to come to the High Court on an issue which was in any way considered to be dead or decided almost 14 years ago by a judicial pronouncement. The Court was inclined to award exemplary cost against the Corporation but a plea of mercy having been made with the statement that respondent no.3 has satisfactory service record and he is to superannuate in the next couple of months. Considering the above submission, the Court takes a lenient view only for the present case but the Managing Director of the Financial Corporation would be well advised to do some reflection with regard to the functioning of the Corporation. This writ application is allowed. Annexure-2 is hereby quashed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)