Jharkhand High Court
State Bank Of India vs Yaqub Ansari on 2 February, 2023
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5053 of 2021
State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Daltonganj Bazar Branch,
Daltonganj (Palamau) ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. Yaqub Ansari
2. The Superintendent of Police, Palamau
3. The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondents
-----
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar
For the State: Ms. Rishi Bharti, A.C to A.A.G-III
-----
05/02.02.2023 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated
31.01.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the District Consumer Form, Palamau at Daltonganj [hereinafter referred to as „the said Forum‟] in Execution Case No. 16/2010 including the Distress Warrant issued pursuant to the order dated 28.02.2017. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi [hereinafter referred to as „the said Commission‟] in Revision Petition No. 04/2017.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the present writ petition. It appears that the respondent No.1 filed Complaint Case No. 42/2009 before the said Forum claiming Rs.2,50,000/- from the petitioner- Bank alleging deficiency in service. The said case was allowed in favour of the respondent No.1 vide order dated 14.07.2010 directing the petitioner to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- from A/c No. 30415840436 of Dalit Vikash Samiti and to credit the same in A/c No. 30680468389 of the respondent No.1 within 30 days along with interest @5% over the same calculated from 30.04.2009 till the date of payment if the total amount is credited in the account of the respondent No.1 within 30 days, failing which the interest would be calculated @10% with effect from 18.02.2009 i.e. the date on which the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by the respondent No.1 till the total amount is transferred in the 2 account of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 preferred Execution Case No. 16/2010 before the said Forum for execution of the order dated 14.07.2010. The Executing Court, however, vide order dated 30.05.2011, held that the said execution case had become infructuous and accordingly disposed of the same. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by the said Forum before the said Commission by preferring F.A. No. 147/2011 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.04.2013, which reads as under:
"This appeal by Md. Yaqub Ansari is filed against the order dated 30.05.11 by which Execution Case No. 16/10 was disposed holding its own order dated 14.07.10 infructuous, passed in Complaint Case No. 42/09 and directing the Dr. Hr. to seek relief in civil court under general law.
2. The admitted facts on the record are that the appellant Yaqub Ansari has filed Complaint Case No. 42/09 in which the opposite party/respondent Shri Satish Kr. Singh, Branch Manager, SBI, Bazar Branch, Daltonganj was directed to credit Rs.1,50,000/- from the account No. 30415840436 of Dalit Vikash Samiti to the account No. 30680468389 of the complainant by order dated 14.07.10.
3. The said order was not challenged but the order remained un-complied for which Execution Case No. 16/10 was filed. In this execution case the story of fraud etc. came to the knowledge of the lower fourm. It held that as the original order was obtained suppressing facts and the account from which Rs.1,50,000/- was to be transferred has no funds, the execution case has become infructuous.
4. In present appeal this order has been challenged. Heard both sides. The law does not permit the lower forum to negate its own order and refuse execution on superficial issues. However the respondent JDr‟s counsel Shri Praveen Jaiswal has filed 1997(2) CPR 187 (S.C) to stress that the original order dated 14.07.10 itself was obtained suppressing facts on forged documents. As such the impugned order be upheld.
5. We have gone through the facts on the record and further the decision cited above. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been kind enough to allow the fourm to recall its own order under 3 inherent power, if obtained by fraud. However before that the lower forum has to come to a definite finding u/s 25 & 27 of the Act.
6. The impugned order did not discuss on what evidence the conclusion was arrived at except the photocopy of certain statement in Complaint Case No. 387/09 pending in criminal court. We cannot approve it specifically when it was available prior to 14.07.10. The Jt Dr had opportunity to bring all such facts on the record before 14.07.10. We further hold that by refusing to execute its own order the learned lower forum has certainly acted beyond its jurisdiction.
7. In result this appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 30.05.11 is set aside. The lower forum shall pass appropriate order under the provisions of law after considering the facts producing before it on merit. No orders as to cost."
Thereafter, the petitioner-Bank challenged the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the said Forum by preferring appeal before the said Commission which was registered as F.A. No. 102/2013. However, the said appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by the said Commission vide order dated 13.03.2014. Execution Case No. 16/2010 then got revived in the said Forum wherein the petitioner appeared and informed that in compliance of the order dated 14.07.2010, letters dated 05.09.2016, 17.09.2016, 25.11.2016 & 04.01.2017 were issued to the Secretary and the President of the Dalit Vikash Samiti to deposit an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- + interest @10% w.e.f. 18.02.2019 till the date of deposit of the said amount in A/c No. 30415840436 so that the same could be credited in the said account of the respondent No.1. However, due to non-compliance of the order dated 14.07.2010, the said Forum firstly vide order dated 31.01.2017, issued notice to the petitioner providing last chance to comply the order dated 14.07.2010, failing which the Distress Warrant was to be issued against it. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.02.2017, the Forum issued a Distress Warrant against the petitioner for not depositing Rs.3,27,423/- in the bank account of the respondent No.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed revision petition being Revision Petition No. 04/2017 before the 4 said Commission challenging the orders dated 31.01.2017 & 28.02.2017 passed by the said Forum which was dismissed vide order dated 05.02.2019. Thus, it appears that the order dated 14.07.2010 passed by the said Forum is still in force. Hence, the impugned orders dated 31.01.2017 and dated 28.02.2017 passed by the said Forum in Execution Case No. 16/2010 do not require any interference of this Court.
The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)