Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/303/2021 on 15 November, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 303 of 2021
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the
State.
Ms. Devika Tiwari, Advocate for the
respondent no. 4.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the
applicant in the impleadment application.
Impleadment Application (IA No. 10 of 2022)
An impleament application has been
filed by Almora Urban Cooperative Bank,
Branch Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar
("the Bank"), with the averments therein that
during his life time, the deceased Nandan
Singh Rana had taken a salary loan from the
Bank. When it was not repaid, the Bank
initiated recovery process of arbitration against
both the wives, one of whom is the petitioner
in the instant case and another is respondent
no. 4, as well as against the Principal,
Government Inter College, Bkjti, Sitarganj,
District Udham Singh Nagar and the
guarantors. The Arbitrator has given award.
Pursuant to the award, accordingly to the Bank
the execution proceedings are pending.
The Court wanted to know from the
learned Counsel for the Bank as to how the
Bank be impleaded in this case? What is its
stand? It is a constitutional law remedy, which
the petitioner is seeking. The loan has been a
contractual obligation between the deceased
and the Bank, which has been adjudicated
under the Statute. That could be enforced
under the Statute.
Learned counsel would submit that since
the Bank has a lien on the dues that would be
payable to the wife of deceased Nandan Singh
Rana, therefore, to that extend the right of the
Bank may be protected.
An Award passed in Case No.
2/Registrar/2021-22 has been enclosed along
with impleadment application as Annexure 2.
Learned counsel for the Bank would
submit that the Uttarakhand Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 ("the Act") provides for
arbitration and the Award is executable under
Section 92 of the Act.
In fact, impliedly what the Bank is
seeking is enforcement of an Award in a writ.
It is settled law that private law remedies are
not enforceable through extraordinary writ
jurisdiction, even though brought against the
public authorities. Private law is that part of
legal system, which is a part of common law
that involves relationship between individuals,
such as Law of Contract or Tort. The loan
definitely would have been under some
agreement executed by the deceased. It is a
contractual obligation. Therefore, no purpose
would be served, if the Bank is made a party in
this case. In the case of K.K. Saksena vs.
International Commission on Irrigation and
Drainage and others, (2015)4 SCC 670, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed this aspect
and held as hereunder:-
"43. What follows from a
minute and careful reading of the
aforesaid judgments of this Court is
that if a person or authority is "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution, admittedly a writ
petition under Article 226 would lie
against such a person or body.
However, we may add that even in
such cases writ would not lie to
enforce private law rights. There are a
catena of judgments on this aspect
and it is not necessary to refer to
those judgments as that is the basic
principle of judicial review of an action
under the administrative law. The
reason is obvious. A private law is that
part of a legal system which is a part
of common law that involves
relationships between individuals,
such as law of contract or torts.
Therefore, even if writ petition would
be maintainable against an authority,
which is "State" under Article 12 of
the Constitution, before issuing any
writ, particularly writ of mandamus,
the Court has to satisfy that action of
such an authority, which is
challenged, is in the domain of public
law as distinguished from private
law."
Even it is the case of the Bank that the
proceedings and execution of the award is
pending.
In view of the above, the impleadment
application is rejected.
WP(S/S) No. 302 of 2021
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Judgment is reserved.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.11.2022
Avneet/
