D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The applicant No. 1 is a partnership firm while applicants No. 2 and 3 are its partners. It appears that the firm was enjoying a cash credit limit of Rs. 45 lacs with the Central Bank of India, Chowk Branch, Vanarasi. Since the limit fixed by the Bank had exceeded, on a demand of the bank, a recovery certificate dated 13.1.2004 was issued against the applicant but on deposit on certain amounts, the same was withdrawn by the bank on 4.3.2004. However, one of the applicant was arrested in pursuance of the citation leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 11868 of 2004 wherein the opposite party Nos. 8 and 1 were also parties.
(3.) A Division Bench by a detailed order dated 22.3.2004, stayed the recovery proceedings against the applicants and directed the release of the applicant No. 2. It is alleged that the said order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the bank but even then the order was served by registered post on the Branch Manager of the Bank, opposite party No. 8, vide covering letter dated 14.5.2004. For convenience, the order of the Division Bench is quoted below : "We have heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Ashok Pandey holding brief of Sri C. P. Mishra appearing for respondent No. 5. A recovery certificate was issued against the petitioners on 13.1.2004, for recovering Rs. 49,30,119.00 along with the recovery charges. This recovery certificate issued by the Bank on 4.3.2004, because the Bank wanted to revise the same, respondent No. 1 to 4 instead of returning the recovery certificate, have proceeded with the recovery proceedings in spite of withdrawal of recovery certificate by the Bank and the Amin has arrested petitioner No. 2 on 17.3.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that this was in violation of fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since the petitioner No. 2 has been arrested without any authority or cause, therefore, adequate compensation may be awarded to the petitioner from respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. The compensation cannot be awarded and the public accountability cannot be fixed on them without hearing respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. District Collector, Varanasi, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Sadar, Varanasi and Collection/Recovery Amin, Tehsil Sadar, Varanasi are directed to file personal affidavits to show cause as to why public accountability be not fixed and compensation be not awarded to the petitioners. Personal counter-affidavits shall be filed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 within one month and the Central Bank of India, Varanasi shall also file counter affidavit within one month. Three weeks time thereafter is allowed to the petitioners for filing rejoinder-affidavit. List on 10th May, 2004. In case counter-affidavits are not filed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 within the time allowed, they shall be present personally before the Court on 10th May, 2004. Until further orders, the respondents are directed to release petitioner No. 2 forthwith arrested by them on 17.3.2004. It is further directed that the recovery proceedings against the petitioners shall remain stayed. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Ramesh Singh, standing counsel within 24 hours for communication as well as for compliance of this order.";