SRIDHAR PUHAN vs TAHASILDAR, BANKI

DEFICIENCY in banking service and in service of grant of lease of stone quarry is grievance the complainant

CASE of complainant is that on 6.4.1987 lease of Ratagarh quarry was granted for the year 1987-88 by Tahasildar, Banki on 6.4.1987 on a premium of Rs. 1,800/-. However, two months after on 11.6.1987, and on 18.7.1987, Revenue Inspector of Ratagarh disturbed the operation of the quarry as a result of which labourers engaged who had been advanced Rs. 900/- left the place without operation of the quarry. Although complaints were made to Sub-divisional Officer, Banki, Revenue Officer Cuttack District, Additional Collector, Collector, Chief Minister and Governor, no one heeded the grievance. Complainant stated that he took loan from the bank under the scheme of self-employment of educated unemployed youth and from out of the principal of Rs. 33,000/- borrowed, he could have paid the loan with interest and would have earned about Rs. 4,00,000/- within four years. However, on account of deficiency in administrative service, he had sustained a loss of about Rs. 80,000/- towards principal and interest borrowed with expenses for communication. Accordingly, he has claimed com- pensation of Rs. 8,80,000/-. On receipt of the complaint on 2.7.1991 complainant was called upon to intimate the names of the person against whom grievance is made. Complainant intimated that grievance is made against the Tahasildar, Banki, Collector, Cuttack, United Bank of India of Bandalo Branch and District Industries Centre, Cuttack. Accordingly notices were sent to them on 2.11.1991. United Bank of India stated its case. Tahasildar and Collector stated their case jointly and District Industries Centre stated its case separately.

From the cases stated and the documents filed the facts emerge that complainant made an application to the Bandalo branch of United Bank of India for loan to carry on business of hand made stone chips under rural credit and financing scheme sponsored by Government as self-employment scheme for educated unemployed youth. This was recommended by the District Industries Centre, Cuttack On the basis of the application of the year 1987, loan of Rs. 33,000/- was sanctioned by the bank on the understanding given by the complainant that he would get lease of the quarry at Ratagarh Mundia a small hill for five years from the State Government authorities. After sanction of the loan, bank intimated the Tahasildar that as per banking norms if the persons gets lease for five years of Ratagarh Mundia, release of the loan may be considered. Tahasildar was requested to confirm whether complainant can get his lease for five years. On receipt of the letter, Tahasildar intimated that in view of the recommendation of the Bank Sairat Source has been settled in favour of complainant for the year 1987-88 on a premium of Rs. 1,800/- and the case has been recommended for grant of five years lease of the sources by the competent authorities. Ratagarh Mundia was put to auction in the year 1987-88 against the set-up price of Rs. 1700/- which was confirmed by Sub Collector. No bidder turned up to attend the auction on 28.2.1987,11.3.1987 and 21.3.1987 for which it was decided to settle the Mundia through negotiation. On 3.4.1987, order was passed to lease out the Mundia in favour of the complainant for the year 1987-88 for Rs. 1,800/- pursuant to letter dated 2.4.1987 of the bank. Order was passed to recommend the grant of lease for five years till end of 1991-1992. On that basis bank was intimated by the Tahasildar on 6.4.1987. Complainant deposited the premium of Rs. 1800/- on 3.4.1987 in Sairat case no. 23 of 1987 and bank disbursed the loan amount as follows; 19.5.1987 Rs. 5,800/- 4.6.1987 Rs. 5,700/- 8.7.1987 Rs. 10,000/- 2.12.1987 Rs. 3,000/- When complainant was operating the quarry, Revenue Inspector of Ratagarh disturbed such operation on 11.6.1987 and on 18.7.1987 on the ground that complainant was breaking stones beyond the lease-hold area of Ac. 37.13 decimals. From out of total area of Ac. 57.13 decimals pertaining to plot No. 4032 he was operating in an excess area of Ac. 11.50 decimals which contained black granite stone although the same was not leased to him. Thereafter, the excess area containing black granite stone was amalgamated to the lease, making the leasehold area of Ac. 48.63 decimals and an additional premium of Rs. 1000/- has been realised from the complainant on 29.12.1987 where after he was allowed to operate in the total area. Obstruction by the Revenue Inspector was brought to the notice of the higher authorities. At that stage, the recommendation for long term lease of the quarry for a period of five years in favour of the complainant was cancelled alleging public agitation. Cancellation of the same was intimated to the Bank on 21.1.1988. Quarry was put to public auction for the year 1988-89 on 22.2.1988 and complainant was intimated on 12.2.1988 for taking part in the public auction. On receipt of the letter, complainant issued a notice through the bank on 22.2.1988 to stop the public auction and did not take part in the same on 22.2.1988. Complainant filed an application in the grievance ceil of the Collector on 1.10.1988 and on 23.6.1989. Are port was called from the Tahasildar on 4.11.1988 to send the report in reply on 16.12.1988. On account of non-operation of the quarry, the loan amount with interest as on 27.11.1991 has come to Rs. 43,458/-. Complainant who had not repaid any amount towards the loan was reminded by the bank on 8.4.1989 and on 4.1.1991. When no payment was made, the sanction has been cancelled on 1.8.1991.

FROM the aforesaid facts it is clear that till the sanction of the loan, there is no deficiency Tahasildar has violated the provisions of Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1983 which were in force while granting the Sairat for the year 1987- 88 in respect of Ac. 37.13 decimals. It is clear from the documents that complainant intended to have the business by making black granite chips. The area in respect of which lease was granted measuring Ac. 37.13 decimals did not contain black granite stones. There is no assertion that the area which was leased out for the year 1987-88 was demarcated to the complainant or possession was given to him. In case, the area would have been demarcated and possession would have been given, complainant would have immediately objected to the same as it did not contain black granite quarry. Under the mis-conception that the entire Ratagarh Mundia was given to the complainant on lease for the year 1987-88, he operated the quarry where black granite stones were available. This is objected to by the officers of the Revenue Department Tahasildar realised the inconvenience caused to the complainant which was also contrary to the 1983 rules in December, 1987. in case there would have been public agitation, Tahasildar could not have granted he lease for the excess area. In case excess area was leased out despite public agitation, Tahasildar was conscious that the agitation would be of no avail. Tahasildar could not have cancelled the recommendation for five years and intimated the bank about the same which is a further obstruction created for the complainant to operate the quarry, Tahasildar ought to have requested his higher authorities to pass an appropriate order. No such order has been produced before us. Thus, we are satisfied that from the beginning, the Tahasildar acted in a high-handed manner contrary to rules and caused difficulty in operation of the lease by the complainant for which he received premium. Coming to the question of deficiency in service, there cannot be any deficiency in service by the District Industries Centre. It had assisted the complainant in getting the loan. There cannot be any deficiency in service by the bank excepting that it ought not to have disbursed the loan amount without a clear sanction of lease for five years since that is the term on which loan was sanctioned. Bank, thus, gave impression in the mind of the complainant that he can get the full amount sanctioned. Even though, lease for five years had not been sanctioned. This is a deficiency in service of the bank.

WHEN Tahasildar had not demarcated die area and had only granted the lease for the years 1987-88 on pen and paper and collected die amount of Rs. 1800/-. We are inclined to hold that this was a mistake of both the complainant and the Tahasildar. Accordingly, complainant is entitled to refund of this amount Complainant had no authority to operate the quarry beyond the leasehold area and obstruction by the Revenue Inspector cannot be said to be deficiency in service. Even if there would have been no obstruction, complainant could not have broken any stone chips as the area leased out had no such stone. Grant of lease of Ac. 13.50 decimals in December, 1987 is of no avail to the complainant as it alleged that by that time the labourers had left. Complainant is thus entitled to refund of Rs. 1,000/- interest on the loan disbursed in the year 1987-88 was on account of the bank as well as the Tahasildar. Complainant who was in a helpless condition received die amount with high hope of employment and prosperity. In case bank would not be able to waive out the interest for the year, the Tahasildar has to pay the same since on account of his mistake, complainant suffered. As regards the period after 1987-88 beginning from 1.4.1988 complainant invited the suffering to himself. Without a valid sanction order, he ought not to have operated the mines or received the loan from the bank. Bank also ought not to have disbursed the amounts when a clear sanction for five years is not available to it Tahasildar cannot be made responsible since he had recommended the lease for five years. It is true that the Tahasildar ought not to have cancelled the recommendation. However, there is no assertion That on account of this cancellation, complainant had suffered. When the bank has committed the mistake of advancing loan without a clear sanction order for five years it should consider to waive out the interest for subsequent periods taking into consideration the fact that the complainant could not pay the instalments on account of difficulties as have been stated earlier. Conclusion, complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 2800/-. Interest on the loan for die year 1987-88 payable by complainant is to be paid by the Tahasildar on account of its deficiency in service. Tahasildar is directed to ascertain the amount from the bank and pay the same. Bank is to consider to waive out the interest from the year 1988-89 onwards. Taking note of the difficulties of the complainant and a direction to that effect is given to the bank who shall intimate the result of consideration to the complainant within six months of receipt of the order.

COMPLAINANT has made a grievance that he deposited some truck loads of stones for breaking it which he could not break in the circumstances of this case. There is no clear material in mat regard. We direct the Tahasildar to make an enquiry about it and assist the complainant on the findings arrived by it. There is no clear evidence relating to profit which the complainant could have made from operating the business. Accordingly, his claim for loss of profit is not sustainable.

COMPLAINANT has not adduced any material to indicate that he had to spend money to have correspondences for his journeys. The dates of journeys have not been indicated clearly. In that view of the matter, complainant is not entitled to any direction in that regard. In the result, complaint is allowed with the directions as indicated above. Complaint disposed of.