Form No. J.(2) Item No.3 Pallab/KS AR(Ct.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 21.04.2025 DELIVERED ON: 21.04.2025 CORAM: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) M.A.T. 1997 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Khurshid Ahmed Perwez & Anr. Appearance:- Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury Ms. Payel Ghosh …….For the Appellants Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy Mr. Pradyat Kumar Roy …..For the Respondent (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1. This intra-Court appeal by the Bank of India is directed against the order dated 18th September, 2024 in W.P.A. 4973 of 2020. The said writ petition was filed by the respondent praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent no.1 to take appropriate legal steps against the respondent nos.2 and 3 for violating the guidelines and rules of the Reserve Bank of India regarding recovery of movable property. The writ petitioner also sought for a direction upon the appellant/bank to release the vehicle, which is a Tata Dumper LPK bearing Registration No.WB 37-C- 7986. The vehicle was seized by the appellant/bank vide seizure Memo dated 29th December, 2016 on account of a default committed by the writ petitioner in repayment of the loan availed from the appellant/bank towards the purchase of a vehicle. 2. As on date, it is not in dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner has cleared the entire outstanding towards the loan amount and what remains to be paid is parking charges and other incidental charges, which have been demanded by the appellant/bank, which is to the tune of Rs.3,33,300/- calculated at the rate of Rs.300/- per day from 28th December, 2016. 2 2 3. It is not in dispute that on 17th October, 2016 Rs.52,250/- was debited from the writ petitioner’s account towards garage charges and advocate fees. Thereafter, no amount appears to have been deducted. The appellant/bank is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Writ Court directing the appellant/bank to take steps for immediate release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.WB 37-C-7986 and that the vehicle should be positively released by 4th October, 2024 as the appellant/bank had preferred the appeal, this direction has not been complied with till date. 4. We have heard Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/bank and Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. 5. We agree with the contention raised by the appellant that the writ petition was not maintainable, more particularly, for a prayer against the appellant/bank for release of a vehicle, which was seized in exercise of the powers granted to the appellant/bank under a loan agreement. Apart from that, the appellant/bank had also filed a claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.II, Calcutta in O.A. No.208 of 2017 and a decree was obtained against the writ petitioner, which amount has been settled by the writ petitioner. In such type of transaction, which is purely contractual, a writ petition is normally not entertained though the organisation, which had extended the loan facility was a public sector undertaking. This is so, because the matter is purely contractual between the lender and the borrower and the remedy available under the agreement or under the relevant law will govern the transaction and extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not have been invoked. 6. Therefore, we would have been well-justified in allowing the appeal filed by the appellant dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, however, the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, precludes us from doing so. What is weighed in our mind are two factors; one that the entire decreetal amount towards the outstanding payable by the appellant/bank has been paid by the respondent/writ petitioner/borrower. What remains to be paid are parking and other incidental 3 3 charges, which under the agreement between the parties are liable to be paid. However, the peculiarity of the case on hand, is that the vehicle was seized in the year 2016 and it has been lying in the parking yard since then and it is common knowledge, by now, the vehicle would have been reduced to virtually a scrap and it may not be feasible for the writ petitioner to make it operational and roadworthy, unless substantial amount is spent. 7. Therefore, while holding that the writ petition could not have been entertained, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we issue the following directions making it clear that this shall not be treated as a precedent. 8. The appellant/bank is directed to release the vehicle subject to the respondent/writ petitioner paying a sum of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be towards the full and final settlement of the parking charges and other incidental charges payable to the appellant/bank and no further amount shall be demanded from the respondent/writ petitioner by the appellant/bank. The vehicle shall be released within three days from the date on which the respondent/writ petitioner makes the payment. 9. With this above observations/directions, the appeal and the connected application (I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024) stand disposed of. 10. No costs. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)