Ratan Kumar Mondal vs State Of West Bengal & Others

Rajasekhar Mantha, J

The writ petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 06.01.2020 which also contains a further date 09.01.2020 issued under Rule 191 (3)(d) of the West

Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 read with Section 122 of the 2006 Act.

The notice is entitled “Proclamation of Sale of Immovable Propertyâ€. The petitioner’s first argument is with regard to the period of thirty days

stipulated in Rule 191 (3)(d) and 191(b) which according to the petitioner has not been complied with.

At paragraph 3 of the writ petition at page 4 thereof, the writ petitioner has clearly stated that it is true to his knowledge that he received the said

notice. It is further stated that the notice is in violation of Section 122 of the 2006 Act. However, in the grounds being 14 in number, the absence of 30

days’ notice has not been specifically canvassed.

Even assuming for the sake of argument, this Court entertains Mr. Kali’s submissions that there is violation of mandatory provision of 30

days’ notice as stipulated in Rule 191 (3)(d), this Court is reminded of the settled position of the Administrative Law that every violation of

procedure prescribed in Rule or Section cannot render the Act illegal by itself unless the petitioner concerned is able to demonstrate prejudice.

The object and purpose of the time stipulation of 30 days’ notice or a 15 days’ second notice as conceived of Rule 191, is to afford reasonable

opportunity to a borrower to repay the dues of the Bank or at least to pay a part or portion thereof. The petitioner has not demonstrated any such

intention in the writ petition. He has not even approached the Bank with any such proposal. It is only at the bar that the petitioner today seeks

instalments before this Court after offering a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- affront.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the sale has been completed and about 5 bids have been received on the notified date. The

sale has been concluded at Rs. 8,00,000/- and the petitioner was offered to take return of the balance sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and odd after adjustment

of the dues of the Bank.

This Court is of the clear view that firstly the infraction of the Rule, if any, by the Bank is extremely minor. The petitioner has not been able to

demonstrate any prejudice much less any offer to repay the admitted dues of the Bank.

In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the infraction, albeit minor of the Rule, if any, by the Bank, has not prejudiced the petitioner in

any way and hence, this Court has no reason to interfere with the sale already conducted by the Bank.

It is, however, made clear that in the event the petitioner repays the entire dues of the Bank as has been recovered from the sale proceeds, within a

period of three days from date, the Bank may cancel the sale and not disturb the petitioner’s possession of the property.

In default of the above stipulation, the Bank shall be at liberty to take all steps to physically evict the petitioner with the help of the Officer-in-Charge,

Contai Police Station, who shall provide sufficient police force to the Bank at its costs to evict the petitioner from the property in question.

Mr. Kali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and with due instructions submits that his client needs 7 days to repay the book balance of the Bank.

In those circumstances, the aforesaid order as regards taking possession shall take effect from the 7th day of the date.

For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition must fail and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.