Prativa Pati vs Regional Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 9305 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P.(C) No.24503 of 2021
                 Prativa pati                            ....       Petitioner
                                          Mr. Braja Mohan Sarangi, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of     .... Opp. Parties
                 India, Bhubaneswar and another
                                        Mr.Devi Prasad Tripathy, Advocate
                                                 (For Opposite Party No.2)

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              06.09.2021
 02.        1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This writ petition has been field apprehending forceful seizure of vehicle bearing registration No.OD-16-E-2701 (Tipper) of the Petitioner.

3. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2 submits that this writ petition was listed on 24th August, 2021 when this Court directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to satisfy the Court with regard to maintainability of the writ petition in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. -v- Sagar Thomas & Ors, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4325. On the very next day, i.e., on 25th August, 2021, the Petitioner, in order to avoid the rigors of order dated 24th August, 2021 and suppressing the fact of pendency of the present writ petition filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.25891 of 2021 for the self-same cause of action, which was listed and disposed of on 31st August, 2021 directing for release of the vehicle in question subject to payment of 50% of the total

// 2 //

outstanding loan amount along with other directions. It is further submitted by Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, in view of the conduct of the Petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed with cost.

4. At this juncture, Mr.Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) to Opposite Party No.2-Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela Branch, Sundargarh within a period of two weeks hence. If the said cost is not paid, the Opposite Party No.2 shall be at liberty to recover the same as outstanding loan amount in accordance with law.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy