ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The grievance of the writ petitioner in this writ application is that although they have paid the entire loan amount to their Oriental Bank of Commerce, but the bank authorities are not releasing the securities furnished at the time of sanctioning the loan. It was submitted by Mr. Deb that in spite of making the full payment to the satisfaction of the bank, the bank authorities are not releasing the securities furnished by the writ petitioner against such loan. Mr. Deb further submits that the action of the bank authorities, who are authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is illegal, arbitrary and malafide. Mr. Deb also submits that this Court should direct the bank authorities to forthwith release the securities furnished by his client forthwith. Mr. Deb cites some judgments in support of his contention and submits that the issue involved in this case was decided in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Central Bank of India v. Debi Ispat Ltd. reported in (2010) 2 CHN Cal 231 and this Court directed the bank authorities to return the securities furnished by the petitioner therein. The aforesaid judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on July 6, 2007. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is reported in (2010) 11 SCC 2003. Mr. Deb submits that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been decided and nothing to be decided any further because the Division Bench decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by delivering a judgment in that regard.
(2.) Learned counsel representing the bank submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ application since the action on the part of the writ petitioner is in response to Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and therefore alternative remedy is available. He also submits that although it was not a security for any other company, but there are unpaid loan amount taken by the group companies and, therefore, the Bank authorities are entitled to keep the security for those unpaid loans. He accordingly submits that the writ petition should be rejected and the securities should be kept with the bank. Learned counsel representing the bank in support of his submission referred a judgment reported in United Bank of India v. Satyabati Tandon, reported in (2010) 1 Bank CLR 281 (SC) and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable.
(3.) Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and considered the materials disclosed in this writ application and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties. It appears to me that the issue has already been settled by the two judgments, one is delivered by a Division Bench of this Court which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a reasoned judgment and therefore nothing remains to be decided. From a plain reading of the judgment cited by Mr. Deb, it appears to me that the writ application is maintainable and any arbitrary action taken by any authority under Article 12 of the Constitution is amenable to the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, I have no hesitation to entertain the writ application which is admitted without any objection at the very beginning or at the time of moving this application. It appears from record that while admitting the writ petition, this Court appointed Joint Receivers and directed them to retain the securities received by the bank from the writ petitioner and the documents and papers in this regard which are lying with the bank authorities. Therefore, at this stage, learned counsel representing the bank cannot take the plea of maintainability of the writ petition.;