1. Mr. Routray, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He had moved the writ petition on 8th December, 2021 to submit, his client is the institute and has filed through its Founder Trustee-cum-Chairman, who was opposite party no.4 in R.S.A. no.47 of 2007 (Kalinga Institute of Mining Engineering & Technology (KIMET) and others v. Kishore Chandra Nath and others). This was a Second Appeal dealt with by judgment dated 18th November, 2014. The learned Judge dismissed the Second Appeal on contest and said, inter alia as follows:

“20. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed on contest but, in the facts and circumstances, without cost. Judgment of the learned lower appellate Court is confirmed. R-4 and R-5 being found to have never ceased to be the members of the Trust Board are entitled to act as the Board of Trustees under the Deed of Trust as well as the bye-laws of the Trust including the management and functioning of the Trust, i.e., the Institution (A-1). The Receivership shall stand terminated on the expiry of two months from the date of this judgment. The Collector, Angul as Receiver shall hand over charge of the entire management of the Institution to the members of the Trust Board existing as on the date of handing over of such charge. On the expiry of the aforesaid period of two months the Receiver shall cease to exercise any function in respect of the management of the institution including exercise of financial power.”

2. Against aforesaid judgment there was Special Leave Petition made to the Supreme Court and on 6th January, 2015, it was dismissed. He demonstrated that the Administration relinquished control over the institute to his client. Then, suddenly by memo dated 13th May, 2019, the Administration wrote to several banks as follows:

“With reference to subject cited above, you are here by directed not to do any kind of financial transaction in favour of Institution of KIMET, Chhendipada without prior written clearance of the Collector, Angul & Tahasildar, Chhendipada –cumAppropriate officer of KIMET, Chhendipada.

This is for your information & necessary action.”

3. His client was compelled to approach this Court by W.P.(C) no.29007 of 2019 disposed of by order dated 28th September, 2020, pursuant to which Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government directed the Administration to withdraw the memo. It was withdrawn by subsequent memo dated 23rd November, 2020.

4. In spite of the memo impeding banking transactions having been withdrawn, his client was again compelled to approach this Court by W.P.(C) no.11646 of 2019. A coordinate Bench said that nothing remained to be decided in the writ petition and made following observation.

“So far as the Fixed Deposit of the trust KIMET is concerned, the petitioner may apply for withdrawal from Fixed Deposit before the concerned Bank and the Manager shall take a decision on the application in accordance with the rules of the Bank within a month of filing of that application.”

5. Today, he submits, petitioner is before Court against, inter alia, letter dated 8th July, 2021 issued by opposite party no.4, whereby petitioner has yet again been obstructed from encashing the fixed deposit standing in its favour. He draws attention to order dated 8th December, 2021 and submits, as a consequence of subsequent hearings, there came to be made order dated 21st September, 2022 directing the Collector to file affidavit evidence regarding whether or not the office had handed over the Fixed Deposit (FD) receipt. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, affidavit dated 12th October, 2022 has been filed. The Collector has said that no FD receipt was available. In support, copy of document dated 15th January, 2015 has been annexed giving particulars of documents given on handing over charge of entire management of the institution to members of the Trust Board.

6. Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of the bank (opposite party no.4). He submits, competence of person to represent petitioner is disputed by his client. Relation of person representing the Trust is to be determined by the civil Court, prior to which his client cannot disburse proceeds in the FD account. He submits further, his client found original FD receipt in office of the Trust. On query from Court Mr. Rath is unable to give date of discovery of the original in office of the Trust, from which photo copy was made and handed up today to the Court.

7. Mr. Routray refers to impugned letter dated 8th July, 2021, by which the bank has refused to disburse proceeds in the FD account. Following from impugned letter is extracted and reproduced below.

“From the documents submitted by it is clear that you were never validly appointed as the Chairman of the KIMET Trust as on dt.15.01.2015 and subsequent thereafter. There is no declaration by any Competent Authority or by any Competent Court of Law declaring you as the Chairman of KIMET Trust enabling you to operate or withdraw the amount kept in FD Account No.3264 (renumber-2782).

FD Account No.3264 (renumber-2782) was opened jointly by the then Collector, Angul as Receiver of KIMET Trust and Tahasildar, with an amount of Rs.2.00cr. As on dt.05.07.2021 the maturity value of such amount comes to Rs.3,14,98,675.00 (Rupees Three Crore Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Five). In absence of a declaration by a Competent Authority or by a Competent Court of Law having jurisdiction it may not be permissible under Banking Rules to disburse such a huge amount to you on behalf of KIMET Trust.

This may please be appreciated and do the needful enabling the undersigned to release the amount in favour of KIMET Trust through a Competent Representative and oblige.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. It is clear from the bank’s position taken by impugned letter dated 8th July, 2021 that the fixed deposit was created by the Collector. Original receipt, therefore, should have been in office of the Collector. The affidavit filed omits to say original FD receipt was made over at the time of handing over charge. The bank has also not been able to disclose, when original FD receipt was found by its official in office of the Trust.

9. This is a fit case where petitioner will approach the bank for issuance of duplicate FD receipt in terms of the rules. The bank is directed to make available indemnity bond format and other requisites, on formalities to be complied in regard thereto. So far as bank’s contention of dispute raised regarding competence or authority of the person representing the Trust is concerned, Court has ascertained that following judgment dated 18th November, 2014 (supra), the Collector handed over charge of the Trust to the same person, who has petitioned Court on behalf of the Trust. In the circumstances, there should be no delay on part of the bank to enable petitioner to apply for and obtain duplicate FD receipt. On obtaining it, petitioner will act in its best interest.

10. So far as the intervention and other applications are concerned, the interveners have throughout been represented. For purpose of completing the formality, they are added as parties. Petitioner will file consolidated cause title.

11. Mr. Rao, learned advocate appears on behalf of the interveners in I.A. no.15569 of 2021 and submits, in event petitioner obtains proceeds in the FD account, there be direction made for status quo on the money, in favour of Civil Suit no.1 of 2019, pending before Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Angul. Mr. Routray submits, in revision arising out of order passed in the suit, proceeding in it has been stayed by this Court.

12. The writ petition along with all applications are disposed of.