Dhananjay Kumar Misra v. The Bank Of Baroda And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12154 of 2010 ====================================================== Dhananjay Kumar Mishra S/O Sri Lakhan Lal Mishra R/O Vill Purana Sahar, Daud Nagar, P.S.Daud Nagar, Distt-Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Bank of Baroda through its Regional Manager, Bihar Region, Anand Vihar, 3rd Floor, West Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001

2. The Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Daud Nagar, Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.D.K.Tiwari, Advocate Mr.Krishna Kant Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ratnesh Nandan Sinha. Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER --------------- 02-04-2015 Heard the parties. In view of the nature of grievances/claims raised on behalf of the petitioner fully delineated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice shall be subserved if the petitioner is granted liberty to file a comprehensive representation before the respondent no.2 with all supporting documents, raising all the pleas which have been raised in the present writ petition. It is ordered accordingly.

If such a comprehensive representation is filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of one month from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the respondent no.2 either himself or any other competent authority of the respondent Bank of Baroda shall be obliged to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at an early date preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12154 of 2010 (5) dt.02-04-2015 2/2 If on consideration of the materials, the competent authority of the respondent Bank of Baroda comes to a conclusion that the claims raised in behalf petitioner are admissible to him, then consequential benefits shall also be given to him without any unnecessary further delay.

This is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner and this is left to be decided by the competent authority of the respondent Bank of Baroda strictly in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Tahir/- U