THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2311 of 2010 1. LALA BALESHWAR PRASAD SINHA S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA LAL R/O MOHALLA- JAI PRAKASH LANE, NEW AREA JAKKANPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SARC STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER (STRESSED ASSEST RESOLUTION CENTER) STATE BANK OF INDIA (SARC) ZONAL OFFICE, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 4. THE CHIEF CUM BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA MAURYA LOK COMPLEX BRANCH, PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal,Sr.Adv & Mr. Ravindra Kr.Sinha. For the Bank : Dr.Binay Kumar Singh. 2 10.5.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add all the parties as before the Tribunal as party to this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for dues of M/s Alja Health Care, whose proprietor is Alok Kumar, the son of the petitioner, petitioner’s property as a guarantor is being proceeded against . Petitioner asserts that upon notice by Debts Recovery Tribunal, for the State of Bihar at Patna, petitioner had appeared and specifically filed an application challenging the letter of guarantee . He had specifically challenged that neither the signature on the said letter of guarantee nor photograph therein are of the petitioner. The said guarantee has been fraudulently created. It wrongly proceeded against petitioner’s property, who has otherwise nothing to do with the financial accommodation granted to the two private respondents. A perusal of order dated 11.11.2009 passed in O.A No. 17 - 2 - of 2009 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal ,Patna, clearly shows that the petitioner raised these objections before the Tribunal but one wonders why neither the applicant- Bank nor the Tribunal considered it of any importance and as if conniving with one another to secure payment, they have proceeded . I say so because upon challenge to the validity of the documents, Bank had taken no steps to prove the same as genuine and suddenly and curiously the Tribunal did not think its importance to dwell upon this question as if it was acting as the agent for recovery of the money of the Bank and it was inconvenient question to address. I regret the Bank and the Tribunal have abdicated their responsibility in the matter. If the Bank and the Tribunal conduct itself in such a manner that would shake the confidence in both .The tribunal must remember that it is an independent and impartial authority to decide the lis between the Bank and the defendants. It is only upon a just finding that it can proceed to order recovery and not on basis of any finding mechanically arrived at . Thus, I have no option but to set aside the order of the tribunal and remand the matter afresh to the tribunal to determine the liability so far as the petitioner is concerned. Let it be noted that so far as the other two defendants are concerned i.e. M/s Alja Health Care and its proprietor Sri Alok Kumar, they have not appeared before the tribunal nor contested the matter and as such ex parte against them shall stand but in so far as it is against the petitioner and his property, which shall stand vacated for fresh determination in accordance with the observations made above and in accordance with law. - 3 - With the aforesaid observations an directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)