Laxmidhar v. State

O.J.C. No.12762 of 1997

13.09.2016 Heard Mr. Sameer Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepa
k Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
 This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the
opposite party to hand over the tractor of the petitioner which was illegally seized.
 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for a tractor loa
n on 02.03.1993 for purchasing a tractor as well as trailor and though a loan was sanctioned f
or Rs.1,36,000/- but the opposite party no.2 supplied a tractor, the cost of which is Rs.1,04,
000/- but did not supply the trailor and the tractor was registered in the office of the R.T.O
., Dhenkanal on 18.06.1993 bearing Registration No.OR-06-6959.

 It is the further case of the petitioner that though on repeated occasion, th
e petitioner approached the authorities and demanded for supply of the trailor but no trailor
was supplied to him by opposite party no.2. It is further stated that the opposite party no.2
bank demanded installment with interest on the entire loan amount i.e. Rs.1,36,000/- which inc
ludes the cost of the tractor and trailor even though no trailor was supplied to him. The oppo
site party no.2 initiated Dispute Case bearing No.25/94-95 and Misc. Case No.9/94-95 in the Co
urt of Assistant Registrar of C.S., Dhenkanal Circle, Dhenkanal for realization of amount of R
s.1,36,000/- (rupees one lakh and thirty six thousand only) which was dismissed on 17.12.1994.

 It is the further case the petitioner that on 04.04.1996 the Board of Manageme
nt passed a resolution vide resolution no.5 (K) to the effect that only tractor was supplied t
o the petitioner and trailor was not supplied to him and it was further resolved that Rs.31,46
0/- along with interest which is a cost of trailor shall be realized from the Secretary of CAR
D Bank, Dhenkanal. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
 the tractor was illegally seized on 01.08.1997.

 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had
purchased the tractor but due to non-supply of the trailor, he could not properly utilize the
tractor. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the loan amoun
t was taken by the petitioner for the agricultural purpose which was held to be fully cleared
by way of Debt Waiver Scheme, 2008 and it was directed that the land mortgaged should be free
from mortgage. Letter issued by the Secretary, C.A.R.D. Bank, Dhenkanal dated 10.01.2010 is fi
led which is taken on record.