ASHIM KUMAR ROY,J. - (1.) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that for construction of his building, he applied for a loan of Rs.2 lakhs from the L.I.C. Although the entire amount was sanctioned as loan but only a sum of Rs.70,000/ - was actually paid to him. It is his further case now the L.I.C. has not only demanding return of the amount which was actually obtained by the writ petitioner as loan but also demanding interest on the sanctioned loan amount i.e. interest on Rs.2 lakhs. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the claim of the L.I.C. being totally illegal and untenable the same ought to be quashed.
(2.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the L.I.C. submitted that there is no dispute that a sum of Rs.70,000/ - was actually paid to the petitioner out of the sanction amount of Rs.2 lakhs but he denied that interest was calculated and charged on the sanction amount of Rs. 2 lakhs. He submitted that it is beyond question for the L.I.C. to charge interest on the amount, which was never paid. He then pointed out that earlier on the self -same cause of action, the petitioner moved another writ petition being W.P. No. 20931(W) of 2009, when a co -ordinate Bench of this court disposed of the said writ application by giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the L.I.C. within a period of two weeks from the date. He further submitted that order was passed on 18th December, 2009, therefore, representation has to be made by 2nd January, 2009, but representation was filed on 13th February, 2010 after the notice was issued. In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that because of some bona fide reasons, the writ petitioner was not in a position to apply for the certified copy of the order before 12th of January, 2010. But in the meantime on 13th February, 2010 he made his presentation. But till date said representation has not been considered and the impugned notice being Annexure P -10 has been issued.
(3.) NOW going through the records, I find while the impugned notice was issued on 2nd February, 2010, the representation was made on 13th February, 2010, although according to the court's order the petitioner was to make his representation on or before 2nd January, 2010. Therefore, there is no wrong on the part of the L.I.C. in issuing the impugned notice and it cannot be said there is any disobedience of the order passed by this court. The petitioner's plea, since he has not been able to obtain the certified copy of the order passed by a Co - ordinate Bench of this court earlier, he was not in a position to make the representation, is also not acceptable because of the fact, he made his representation without the certified copy of the order. While he applied for certified copy on 12th January 2010 and obtained the same in May, 2010 but he made his representation on 13th February, 2010. Therefore, the non -availability of the order is not the real ground for non -making representation within time.;