P.K. Deb, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society North 24-Parganas in connection with Dispute Case No. 20 of 2006 and also for an order directing the respondent No. 2 to take recourse to the provision of the law for having the loan amount recovered from the respondent No. 5 Gour Aich Mazumdar or through his employer being respondent No.6.
(2.) THE respondent No.5 herein Gour Aich Mazumdar, an employee of Eastern Railway, applied for loan to the respondent No. 2. THE writ petitioner herein stood as Guarantor for the repayment of the loan borrowed by the respondent No. 5 from respondent No.2. On completion of the formalities, as amount of Rs. 40000/- was sanctioned. THE aforesaid amount was to carry interested @ 16.5% per annum. THE principal amount with interest was required to be paid in 60 monthly instalments. In the wake of the failure on the part of the respondent No. 2 to repay the loan by instalments the bank raised a dispute case before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, impleading the loanee as defendant No. 1 and the writ petitioner as defendant No. 2. The employer of respondent No. 5 was impleaded as defendant No. 3. While the Divisional Manager, Eastern Railway (Account) was made defendant No. 4. The dispute case was referred to the learned Arbitrator. The dispute case was taken up for hearing after service of notice upon all the defendants. The principal debtor did not appear even after service of notice. The learned Arbitrator on hearing the parties passed an order on 02/11/2006, directed the defendant No. 1 to repay the principal with interest within a month. It was directed that in the event of failure on the part of the loanee to pay the outstanding amount, the entire outstanding amount would be required to be paid by Senior Section Engineer. It was further stipulated that in the event of payment not being paid by the loanee that is Gour Aich Mazumdar and the Senior Section Engineer, Eastern Railway, the entire amount along with interest would be realised from defendant No. 2. It was also stipulated that in the event of outstanding amount not being recovered from defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the amount would not be realised from the members of the Bank for their casual approach in sanctioning the loan.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the Bank preferred an appeal. In allowing the appeal in-part, the learned Tribunal passed the order to the extent that the principal loanee and the writ petitioner would have jointly and severely liable for the repayment of loan. Appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, Mr. Soumitra Banerjee, learned Advocated, has submitted that the learned Co-operative Tribunal passed the order against the writ petitioner without affording any opportunity to the writ petitioner to make submission before it. It is submitted that the order was passed by the learned Tribunal in haste without really ascertaining as to whether the notice had been duly served on the writ petitioner. It is submitted that stunned by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Tribunal, the write petitioner sought for information by making a proper application for information. The information slip, it is submitted, has confirmed that on opportunity was extended to the writ petitioner to make submission before the learned Tribunal.;