IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17106 of 2007 MADAN MOHAN PD NARAIN SINHA Versus BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION.& ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha & Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocates For the BSFC: Mr. K.D.Chatterjee,Advocate Mr. V.K.Tripathy, Advocate ------------- 3 23.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. No additional affidavit in terms of the earlier direction passed by this Court dated 7.4.2009 has come to be filed on behalf of the respondent Bihar State Financial Corporation giving the details of the furniture and fixtures when the property had been taken over in the year, 2002. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondents Bihar State Financial Corporation their stand is that due to lack of cooperation by the district administration no inventory could be drawn up. They do not deny that the property was taken over in the year, 2002. They are willing to hand over the property on “as is where is” basis and also issue no dues certificate forthwith but the petitioner is not cooperating in the matter. There are certain unexplained areas even on the part of the petitioner in the present case. Except the demand that the respondents had not furnished so called inventory, there is nothing on record as to what was the furniture and fixtures, according to him, when the property was taken over so that the matter can be adjudicated in an appropriate way. In absence of the - 2 - same the Court cannot record its opinion on such a claim. The other submission is that in terms of the OTS all payments stood made but instead of that the petitioner is coerced for additional payment of about Rs. 67,000/- for which no details or accounting has been furnished to the petitioner as to under what circumstances it is to be paid. The Corporation being a public authority has obligation to furnish the details of the calculation for which the payment has been made by the petitioner. The Court directs that the Corporation will do so within a period of two weeks on furnishing a copy of this order by the petitioner. The Corporation is further directed to hand over the possession of the property in “as is where is” basis with liberty to the petitioner that he can raise his grievance before an appropriate forum under the law if so advised with regard to the claim of furniture and fixtures etc. which were there at the time of taking possession by the respondents. In addition to the same it is also not disputed that a Public Sector Corporation, namely, National Insurance Company was a tenant in the property. When the property was taken over by the respondents the said property cannot be utilized gratis by the said Corporation. The National Insurance Company has obligation to pay the rent to the petitioner since it is the stand of the Bihar State Financial Corporation that no rental has been paid to them. Bihar State Financial Corporation, therefore, is - 3 - directed to give a certificate to the petitioner certifying that no rental has been paid by the National Insurance Company with a copy to the National Insurance Company. The National Insurance Company will thereafter be obliged to give the rental amount to the petitioner, if the same has not already been paid, for the period they were in occupation, even though the Bihar State Corporation had technically taken over the assets for the period in question. If the National Insurance Company does not pay the said rental amounts within three months from the date of production or communication of the copy of the order and certification by Bihar State Financial Corporation as directed above, the petitioner has liberty to recover the said rental amount by taking recourse to law. This writ application stands disposed of with the above direction/observation. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)