CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10249 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ----------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, constituted under State Bank of India Act having its Branches all over the country including Arrah Branch through its Chief Manager, Sant Kumar Jha ------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah 3. The District Certificate Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah 4. M/s Mani Lal Gupta & Jwellers, having its place of business at Gopali Chowk, Arrah, District Bhojpur, through its proprietor Mani Lal Gupta ------------- Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. S.D.SANJAY For the respondent No.4 : M/s Naresh Kumar Malhotra & Binod Kumar Sinha No.2 For the State : Mr Girijesh Kumar, J C to AAG – 3. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ******* A K Tripathi,J Petitioner State Bank of India wants quashing of the order dated 18.6.1999 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Certificate Appeal No. 3 of 1997-98. Petitioner also wants quashing of the order dated 28.7.1997 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Ara in Certificate Case No. 992 of 1981-82 by virtue of which petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.35, 927/- which has been said to be paid in excess by the certificate debtor while settling the dues with the petitioner bank. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to make a legal submission by taking recourse to an amendment brought about in section 17 in 1982 that the rate of interest has undergone a change - 2 - and money deposited by respondent no.4, the certificate debtor will have to be calculated based on the interest prevalent after the amendment. He has even submitted with regard to the rate of interest which ought to be, which was a contracted amount. 3. Some of the questions which has been raised by the counsel for the State Bank of India may have been considered by this Court but much before passing of the order in appeal in a categorical communication dated 21.5.1997 (Annexure-A of respondent No.4) made on behalf of the Manager of the Branch Office of SBI to the Certificate Officer, a categorical statement has been made that on the calculation of the amount deposited by respondent no.4 a case of refund of Rs.35927/- has been made out, but this is without payment of any interest to the certificate debtor on the excess payment. If the functionaries of the Bank have stated the position and based on the circumstances and material if the order of refund has been made, then in the opinion of the Court there is no occasion for permitting the petitioner to challenge or in any way create a situation for not refunding the money to respondent No.4. The litigation lacks bonafide in view of the Annexure-A which has been brought on record with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4. 4. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed with a direction upon the petitioner that they shall take steps for refund of the amount within six weeks from the date of receipt / communication of this order. It will be open to the petitioner to claim payment of - 3 - simple interest @ 6 per cent per annum on the amount which has not been refunded to him in all these years. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 11th November, 2008 R K Pathak (NAFR)