IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1211 of 2010 The Managing Director, Aurangabad District Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd., at Aurangabad, through its Managing Director, Namely Sharwan Kumar, son of Abhimanyu Singh, resident of Village- Narottampur, P.S. Karzara, District-Lakhisarai. ….Petitioner….Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bihar State Legal Services Authority, through its Secretary, in front of Patna Museum, Budha Colony, Patna. 3. District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad, through Its Secretary, Aurangabad. 4. Ajeet Kumar Singh, son of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, resident of Satyendra Nagar, Block Colony, P.S. Aurangabad Town, District-Aurangabad. ……Respondents…Respondents. ----------- 02- 5.7.2011 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar for the appellant, and Mr. R.K. Choubey, learned Standing Counsel No.8 for respondent nos.1 to 3. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.15048 of 2009, and is aggrieved by the order dated 6.7.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order dated 30.7.2009, passed by the learned Additional Munsif-I-cum- Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad, in Pre. Dispute Case No.01 of 2009, by which the appellant was directed to adjust the amount of proceeds of the fixed 2 deposit scheme against the loan amount standing against respondent no.4, and also to waive 25% of interest amount. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a grievance before us that waiver of interest will operate harshly and unjustly against the appellant Bank. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent no.4 had obtained loan from the Bank and defaulted leading to a civil suit in the Civil Court at Aurangabad. The matter was considered by the learned Munsif-I -cum- Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad, who passed the impugned order dated 30.7.2009, whereby the appellant Bank was directed to adjust the loan amount from the fixed deposit of respondent no.4 after waiving 25% of the interest amount. It appears to us that this is a just an equitable solution for realization of the dues of the Bank. We do not see enough justification for the appellant to challenge the same in writ jurisdiction, far less in appeal. 4. We are in this connection reminded of the observations of Mr. Bibek Debroy in his book entitled ‘In 3 the Dock: Absurdities of Indian Law’, that the pending litigations in this country without any addition thereto, will take 324 years for disposal. These observations were made more than two decades ago, and the situation has further deteriorated. A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has made observations that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. Instead of cooperating in the matter, the appellant had needlessly burdened this Court with the writ petition and the present appeal. 5. This appeal is dismissed. (S.K. Katriar, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.) S.K.Pathak/