Aurangabad Central Coopt.Bank v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12159 of 2010 ====================================================== Aurangabad Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Aurangabad, through its Managing Director, namely, Sharvan Kumar , S/O Late Abhimanyu Singh, R/O Vill Narottampur, P.S.Karzara, Distt-Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Bihar State Legal Services Authority, through its secretary in front of Patna Museum, Budha Marg, Patna

3. District Legal Services Authority, Aurangabad through its Secretary, Aurangabad

4. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, C/O Ram Bachan Singh, R/O Vill Pachokhar, P.S.Deo, Distt-Aurangabad .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh For the State : Mrs. Archana Prasad, AC to SC-16 For the Respondent no.4: Mr.Shailesh Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2015 Heard the parties.

The petitioner, a Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure-5) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aurangabad, whereby the prayer of the respondent no.4 for settlement of loan account with the petitioner-Bank has been allowed. By the aforesaid order, the respondent no.4 has been directed to pay the entire principal amount of the petitioner-Bank within a period of 20 days along with 25% interest. Remaining 75% of the interest has been waived. The grievance of the petitioner is that waiving of 75% interest is not proper and is excessive.

In the whole writ petition, it has not been stated

Patna High Court CWJC No.12159 of 2010 (4) dt.02-03-2015 anywhere that mandatory provisions of Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 was violated by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Aurangabad while passing the impugned order settling the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 submits that, pursuant to the impugned order dated 23.06.2010, the respondent no.4 has paid the entire principal amount as also 25% interest amount.

In above view of the matter, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure-5).

Consequently, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U