Amit Kumar Nayak vs Branch Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 16321 Ori

Orissa High Court

Amit Kumar Nayak vs Branch Manager on 6 November, 2024

Author: Murahari Sri Raman

Bench: Murahari Sri Raman

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No.23361 of 2024
            Amit Kumar Nayak                       ....          Petitioner
                                       Mr.Bibhuti Bhusan Swain, Advocate
                                      -versus-
            Branch Manager, Indus-Ind Bank,        ....    Opposite parties
            At/PO-Brajrakabati Road, Cuttack&
            another
                            Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahy, Advocate for Bank
                                 CORAM:
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No.                               ORDER
   01.                                 06.11.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. The petitioner has come up before this Court invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):-

"It is therefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why;

(i) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to close the loan account on OTS basis by taking Rs.20,000/-;

(ii) the interest charged @ 23.03% per annum with monthly rests in the loan account of the petitioner shall not be held an illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law;

(iii) the Opp. Parties bank shall not be permanently restrained to seize the Auto bearing Reg. No. OD-05-AL-1552;

And pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions as may be deemed fit and proper; And for such act of kindness, Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

3. Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties-INDUSIND BANK on instruction submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the relief claimed by the petitioner is against Private Financial Institution. He asserted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Order dated 03.11.2023 passed in W.A. No.1702 of 2022 (The Branch Manager, IndusInd Bank Limited Vrs. Ranjan Kumar Das and others) by a Division Bench of this Court. 3.1. He further submitted that there are outstanding loan amount to be discharged by the petitioner. By way of this writ petition, in essence, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the opposite parties to consider his proposal for one time settlement. Mr. Ramachandra Panigrahy, learned Advocate submitted that such a course is not permissible. Reference is made to Bijnor Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. Vrs. Meenal Agarwal, (2023) 2 SCC 805 wherein it has been held that, "In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that the High Court, in the present case, has materially erred and has exceeded in its jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandamus in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by directing the appellant Bank to positively consider/grant the benefit of OTS to the original writ petitioner. The impugned judgment and order [Meenal Agarwal v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 989] passed by the High Court

is hence unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside."

4. In view of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bijnor Urban Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra) and this Court in Indus-Ind Bank Ltd. (supra) no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

5. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini

Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge)

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 06-Nov-2024 19:46:38