Patna High Court
Dharmendra Kumar vs The Chief Manager, The Union Bank Of ... on 18 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5224 of 2015
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar son of Shri Tej Narayan Thakur Resident of Village-
Patahiroop P.S.- Sadar Dist.- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chief Manager, The Union Bank of India Near Chunni Palaza, Ground
Floor, Near Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Kankarbagh, District-
Patna.
2. The Zonal Manager, The Union Bank of India, Near Chunni Palaza Ground
Floor, Near Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Kankarbagh, District-
Patna.
3. Branch Manager, The Union Bank of India, Club Road Mithanpura, P.S.-
Mithanpura Distt.- Muzaffarpur.
4. Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Son of not known at Samastipur P.S. and District-
Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiopujan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manish Kishore, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-04-2025
1. The Writ petition is filed seeking a
direction in the nature of Mandamus, upon the
respondents not to recover the illegal amount and to
return the bus bearing registration No. BR-06-
PB/3135 and BR-06-PB/3136 which were seized by
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and sold to respondent No. 4
or any other persons on 26.11.2014 and 20.02.2015
respectively.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2015 dt.18-04-2025
2/6
2. During the course of arguments, It was
brought to the notice of this Court by Learned
counsel for the respondents that the petitioner
approached this Court for the third time, having
previously filed two writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 21190
of 2014 and CWJC No. 1858 of 2015 which were
disposed of by this Court on 11.12.2014 and
19.02.2015
respectively. The petitioner has now
approached this Court again seeking the same relief.
3. On perusal of Annexure-13, the order in
CWJC No. 21190 of 2014, it is evident that the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court prior to
the auction of the buses, and gave an undertaking
that he would deposit the loan installments and
further seek for release of the vehicles. This Court,
after considering submissions made by the Learned
counsel for the petitioner, directed the petitioner to
pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- before 11:00 A.M. on
12.12.2014 and the remaining amount of Rs. 10.58/-
lakhs shall be paid by the petitioner in three equal
monthly installments of 3.53/- Lakhs, each before
15th January 2015, 15th February 2015 and 15th
Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2015 dt.18-04-2025
March, 2015. The said payment plan was accepted
by the Corporation Bank in lieu of postponing the
auction which was proposed to be held on
13.12.2014. The said order further disclose that in
the event of failure of aforesaid installments, the
buses would be liable to be seized again and put to
auction.
4. On perusal of Annexure-14, the orders in
CWJC No. 1858 of 2015, it is evident that the
petitioner again approached this Court, and this
Court dismissed the Writ petition vide order dated
19.02.2015 with an observation that the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reopen the matter on merits.
During the course of arguments in CWJC No. 1858 of
2015, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was willing to pay 2,00,000/- and
once again prayed for permission to pay the rest
amount in installments. However, the bank gave the
petitioner an option to pay the entire outstanding
amount, as per the earlier directions of this Court by
next date. However, the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.02.2015 has given a
Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2015 dt.18-04-2025
finding that there is no merit in the case and there is
no reason for the Court to grant further indulgence
to the petitioner as he has failed to comply his own
undertaking and with the said observations,
dismissed the Writ petition.
5. The present Writ petition is filed after the
sale of both buses. The prayer in the present Writ
petition is to issue rule NISI, calling upon the
respondents, to show cause as to why appropriate
Writ should not be issued and to release the illegal
amount of 32,62,128/- and to return the buses which
were seized and sold to the 4th respondent.
6. Admittedly, buses bearing No. BR-06-
PB/3135 and BR-06-PB/3136 were sold in the auction
to respondent No. 4 on 25.11.2014, therefore, the
prayer to return the buses would not arise in the Writ
petition.
7. Annexure-11 of the Writ petition is the
demand letter issued by the Corporation Bank, in
favour of the petitioner, which clearly disclose that
they have sold the seized buses through e-auction on
25.11.2014, for an amount of Rs. 13 lakh and after
Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2015 dt.18-04-2025
crediting this amount to the petitioner loan account,
a balance of Rs. 32,62,128/- remained as
outstanding due.
8. The petitioner has now approached this
Court challenging the said illegal amount. However,
no representation has been filed by the petitioner
subsequent to 25.11.2014, before the Bank showing
that the amount is illegal. If at all the petitioner has
any grievance he ought to have approached the
bank authorities seeking for clarification on
calculations, as to how the bank has arrived to an
amount of Rs. 32,62,128/- even after adjustment of
EMIs and deduction of the auction amount. No
details were mentioned in the Writ petition, as to
how much amount the petitioner has paid to the
bank by way of EMI. Further, there is no record to
prove that amount of Rs. 32,62,128/- is illegal or not.
The petitioner has not challenged the auction
proceedings of the vehicles which was alleged to
have been sold to the respondent No. 4. In the
absence of relevant material, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5224 of 2015 dt.18-04-2025
bank, as the petitioner himself failed to comply with
his earlier undertaking given before this Court.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ
petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Manish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.05.2025
Transmission Date 06.05.2025
