M/S Bhasker Electric Company & Anr vs Central Bank Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1815 Jhar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     [Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
                           W.P.(C) No. 1722 of 2018
       M/s Bhasker Electric Company & Anr.                      .... .. ... Petitioners
                                Versus
       Central Bank of India & Ors.                          .. ... ... Respondents
                                 ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO .........

       For the Petitioners                : None
       For the respondents/Bank           : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate

                                           ......
05/ 05.05.2022.

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners on repeated calls. Learned counsel for the Respondents-Bank, Ms. Amrita Sinha has submitted that petitioner -M/s Bhasker Electric Company has also preferred Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2019, which has already been dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of order/judgment dated 20.12.2021. Paras 18 and 19 of the said judgment may profitably be quoted hereunder:-

"18.The next limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the compromise offer given by the petitioner was duly approved by the AGM (Recovery), Central Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai and as such the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to redeem the property under the Special OTS Scheme of the respondent-Bank.

19.To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has gone through the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors." reported in (2019) 15 SCC 1, wherein it has been held as under:

27. In [Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395] a Constitution Bench held that merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. For a file noting to amount to a decision of the Government, it must be communicated to the person so affected, before that person can be bound by that order. Until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it cannot be regarded as anything more than being provisional in character.

28. Similarly, in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India [Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705] this Court held that notings recorded in the official files, by the officers of the Government at different levels, and even the Ministers, do not become a decision of the Government, unless the same are sanctified and acted upon, by issuing an order in the name of the President or Governor, as the case may be, and are communicated to the affected persons."

Considering such submission and, looking into the judgment passed in W.P.

(C) No.2696 of 2019, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made in the instant Writ Petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) R.S.