IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10991 of 2008 PRAMOD KUMAR NIRALA, SON OF LATE CHANDESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TEKA BIGHA, P.O.- LAKHANPURA, P.S.- BAKHATIYARPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. AT PRESENT CHAIRMAN, TEKA BIGHA, TEJA BIGHA, PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DISTRICT- PATNA :---- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY CO- OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE GOVT. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 5. THE THIS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 6. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, PATNA. 7. THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, PATNA. 8. THE MANAGER, INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, 6TH FLOOR PATNA 800001. 9. THE AREA MANAGER, INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZER CO- OPERATIVE LTD., PATNA. :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 03.01.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, the authorities of the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative Ltd., Patna (hereinafter referred to as “I.F.F.C.O.”. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the instruction of the Area Manager of I.F.F.C.O. dated 06.06.2008, Annexure-5, whereunder release order dated 05.06.2008 has been cancelled on the ground that the Banker’s Cheque on the basis of which release order dated 05.06.2008 was issued in favour of the petitioner was not taken from the bank after debit of the amount from the account of the petitioner. In this connection learned counsel for the Respondent has referred to the instruction of the proprietor of M/s. Tele Link dated 06.06.2008 addressed - 2 - to the General Manager, T.U.C.B.L. Bank, Patna, Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit of Respondent Nos. 8 and 9, whereunder information about the loss of the aforesaid Banker’s Cheque dated 04.06.2008 has been given to the Branch so as to enable the Branch to stop payment. Once the release order was cancelled with reference to the instruction dated 06.06.2008, Annexure-2 the area Manager, I.F.F.C.O. should have returned the Banker’s Cheque received from the petitioner to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to settle the dispute between him and the proprietor of Tele Link on whose instruction the Banker’s Cheque was not to be honoured by the issuing bank. 3. Counsel for the Area Manager, I.F.F.C.O. states that the Banker’s Cheque has been returned to the proprietor of Tele Link. Such action of the Area Manager who is represented in these proceedings by Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 is to the detriment of the petitioner. It is not known under what circumstances petitioner obtained the Banker’s Cheque from the proprietor of Tele Link in view of the definite case of the petitioner that he instructed the proprietor of Tele Link to obtain the Banker’s Cheque after realizing commission from him. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties it is quite evident that there is dispute as to who is the holder of the Banker’s Cheque. In the circumstances, Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 having cancelled the release order ought to have - 3 - returned the Banker’s Cheque to the petitioner so as to enable him to seek redressal about the amount of Banker’s Cheque from either the bank or the agent from whom they had obtained the Banker’s Cheque but in no case the Banker’s Cheque should have been returned to the proprietor of Tele Link from whom Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 had not received the Banker’s Cheque. Accordingly, I direct Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 to take back the Banker’s Cheque from the proprietor of Tele Link and return the same to the petitioner, as early as possible, in any case within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by Respondent No. 8, failing which proceed to release the fertilizer in terms of the release order dated 05.06.2008 within the same time. It goes without saying that in the event petitioner is able to establish his authority to hold the Banker’s Cheque, he shall be entitled to claim interest from Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 at the rate admissible in Commercial Banks on Fixed Deposit. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)