IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8361 of 2005 Allahabad Bank, Head Office-2, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, through its Dy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office, Patna, Shri A.K. Chakraborty…………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. Union off India, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi through its Secretary. 2. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna. 3. The Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 396, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001. 4. The Recovery Officer-1, Debts Recovery Tribunal, 396, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001…………….Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the R.B.I. : Mr. Kaushal Kr. Jha, Advocate. For the remaining respondents : None. ----------- 07/ 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.2 Reserve Bank of India. Neither anyone appears for respondent no.1 Union of India nor anyone appears for respondent nos.3 and 4, namely Presiding Officer and Recovery Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging demand notice dated 09.03.2005 (Annexure-4) by which the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (respondent no.3) directed the petitioner-bank to report as to under what provision of law and scheme a demand of public money to the tune of Rs.1,48,28,542.69 could be settled for Rs.11,80,000.00 and also challenging order dated 14.06.2005 (Annexure-6) disposing of Miscellaneous Case No.01 of 2005, but observing that the compromise made by the bank with the borrower M/s Vaishali Spun Pipe Industries and others was not appropriate and within natural justice and hence the said authority directed the Chairman-cum- - 2 - Managing Director of Allahabad Bank, Head Office and Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna and Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi for taking appropriate action against the petitioner bank. 3. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the materials on record and the averments of learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that the borrower, who was the debtor of the petitioner bank, offered a compromise which was sanctioned by the authorities of the bank, whereafter the borrower paid the entire settlement amount and after receipt of the settlement amount the petitioner bank filed an application before the Recovery officer for dropping the recovery proceeding which was continuing before him and such Recovery Officer vide order dated 21.04.2004 (Annexure-2) dropped the recovery proceeding. However, since the certificate was required to be formally withdrawn for closure of the case and return of the documents, the petitioner bank filed M.A. No.13 of 2004 for withdrawal of certificate under section 26 (2) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act and for return of the original documents. The said application was also allowed by the then Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna and the certificate was directed to be withdrawn and the registry was directed to return all the original documents to the petitioner bank. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that after all the aforesaid procedure, the Debts Recovery Tribunal or its Presiding Officer and Recovery Officer became functus officio and the incumbent Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal had - 3 - no jurisdiction at all to re-open the matter again and pass the impugned order or to issue impugned notice. 4. Furthermore, no valid or reliable ground has been shown to assume that the compromise entered into between the parties was not just or appropriate. Hence, merely on the basis of baseless and frivolous assumptions such steps should not have been taken by the said authorities. 5. Furthermore, by the impugned order the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has given directions to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Allahabad Bank, Kolkata and the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Patna as well as the Chief Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi to initiate action against the petitioner bank, although he had no jurisdiction at all to issue such directions to the said authorities. 6. In view of the aforesaid findings, this court deprecates such action/order of the Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The impugned notice and order issued/passed by the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)