AMENDED PETITION IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W. P. rCI N0. 4557 OF 2009 PETITIONER Shobharam Manikpuri, S/o Late Shri Shivlal Manikpuri, aged about 64 yesirs, R/o Village-Badi Koni, Post-Koni, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, though the Secretaiy, Eniployment & Training Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Oriental Bank of Commerce, through the Managing Director, Harsh Bhawgin E Block Kanat Place, New Delhi 3. Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bilaspur, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Loan Officer Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bilaspur, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5. Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLB 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ^^ WRIT PETITION (C) N0.4557 OF 2009 PETITIONER Shobharam Manikpuri Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPQNDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Saitish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State Shri Ashok Dubey, Advocate for the respondents No.2 to 4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 18th day of November, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 15-01-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Bitaspur, by which the Principal, Model Industrial Trainign Centre, Koni, Bilaspur, has been directed to deduct an amount of ? 3,849/- from the pension account of the petitioner and deposit the same in the home loan account of the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent Orientat Bank of Commerce (for short "the respondent Bank") to either giveflat/house to the petitioner in accordance with law or stop taking loan installments from the petitioner, against home loan and also refund the entire money recovered against the home loan from the petitioner with interest. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the respondent department in the year July 1966 and retired from his service on 30-06-2004. The pension of the petitioner is fixed at the rate of ? 6,1437- per month. The petitioner obtained the house toan amounting to ? 3,00,000/- from the respondent Bank. On the basis of some complaints against the respondent Bank authorities, l^ First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 30-12-2003 by the Central Bureau of Investigation. During the course of investigation, it was found that about 48 false loan cases were made by the respondent Bank. In the said list, the name of the petitioner was also included on the ground that he has submitted a forged pay slip and accordingly the petitioner was arrayed as accused in the criminal case. The house/flat of the petitioner was sealed by the respondent Bank and was auctioned for recovery ofthe house loan amount. In the meantime, the respondent No.5/Naib Tahsildar, Bilaspur, initiated recovery proceedings and by the impugned order dated 15-1-2008 the Principal, Model Industrial Trainign Centre, Koni, Bilaspur, was directed to deduct an amount of ? 3,849/- from the pension account of the petitioner and deposit the same in the home loan account of the petitioner. Thus, this petition against the two parallel proceedings. Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice because on the one hand the house/flat in question was sealed by the respondent Bank and the auction proceedings had been initiated and on the other hand the recovery proceedings were initiated from the pension account of the petitioner also. For recovery of loan amount two parallel proceedings cannot be initiated at a time. The pension is the •only source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family members. On the other hand, Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, submits that the petitioner submitted wrong information at the time of obtaining loan, as in the agreement dated s^s 11-2-2002 the petitioner mentioned his age as 47 years and also submitted the wrong information with regard to his age of superannuation i.e. 30-6-2015, which is evident from the loan form i.e. Annexure - R2/1, whereas the actual date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30-6-2004. Even the installments of loan amount has also been fixed by the respondent Bank on the basis of gross income ofthe petitioner i.e. ? 8813/-. 7 . Shri Dubey, further submits that once the possession of the flat of the petitioner has been taken over to satisfy the loan amount, there is no question of recovery of money through other source i.e. by deducting the amount from the pension of the petitioner. Shri Dubey also submits that the loan amount with interest would be calculated and if on sale of the flat, the loan amount with interest is not satisfied therecovery proceedings may be initiated for the balance amount and if more money has been obtained, the same may be returned back to the petitioner. 8. Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that once the flat of the petitioner was constructed on the basis of loan advanced by the respondent Bank and the Bank has already obtained possessions of the said flat, there cannot be any other proceeding for recovery of the loan amount. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the recovery is being made not in a proper way. There should be a proper calculation of the amount, which is to be recovered from the petitioner and after possession of the flat has been taken over by the respondent Bank, other proceedings through deduction in the pension amount cannot continue until it is made clear that the amount of bank loan has not been satisfied by sale of the flat. ...^.,_£.-„....,:;,.;.„.,.,.,^^, 10. This is also the case of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that if the sale proceeding of the flat in dispute is less in that eventonly other proceedings may be initiated for recovery of the remaining loan amount and if the sale proceedings exceeds the loan amount with interest, the petitioner would be entitled to the remaining amount. 11. It is a trite law that pension amount cannot be withheld without proper authority of law. It has not been made out by either party whether proper authority has granted permission to withhold the pension for recovery ofthe loan amount. 12. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the said question and having regarding to the submission by the learned cpunsel appearing for the respondent Bank, it is proper to quash the impugned recovery order dated 15-1-2008. The loan amount with interest shall be recovered from the sale proceeds of the flat in dispute. Thus, no direction in respect of this can be issued at this stage. ^3. In view offoregoing, the impugned order dated 15-1-2008 (Annexure - P/1) is quashed. As observed in the preceding paras, after sale of the flat in dispute, if the sale proceeds exceed the amount of house loan with interest, the remaining amount may be returned to the petitioner. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. ___-—- Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge