IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 537 of 2007 Date of Decision :17.03.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Chain Ram . ….Petitioner. Versus H.P. State Cooperative, Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. and others. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents 1, 3 &4: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents 2 & 5: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the sale certificate Annexure P-7, by which his land has been sold by the Sale Officer of the H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture, and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Kasumpti, Shimla for a sum of Rs. 7,85,000/- for the recovery of the loan advanced to the petitioner. This is a strange case. The petitioner is complaining violation of the Principles of Natural justice, in as much as, he has not been associated with the sale process either personally or through his General Power of Attorney. He also complains that there are some receipts issued by the Bank accepting and acknowledging certain sums of money paid by him which has not been accounted for in his loan account. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. On a query put by this Court to both the counsel, this Court was informed that the possession of the land is still with the petitioner who is still reaping benefits from the land. I fail to comprehend the nature of the sale which has been effected. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions that the Bank shall dispose of the representation Annexure P-8, which has been made by the petitioner to the respondent Bank complaining about the illegalities and not making the adjustment of the amount purportedly paid by the petitioner to the respondent Bank. This representation Annexure P-8 shall be disposed of by the bank by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from today. For this purpose, the respondent Bank shall grant an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Writ Petition disposed of. All interim orders are vacated. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank, he may approach this Court in accordance with law, if so permissible. I have not pronounced on merits as to what amount has been paid or what amount remains recoverable. Such determination shall be made by the respondent bank independently on the material before it. March 17, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (KS) Judge