SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ( 1 ) RULE. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. ( 2 ) IT is a classic case of being more loyal than the king. The distress warrant was issued against respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 1 Corporation on account of arrears of property tax. Surprisingly, respondent No. 3 did not challenge the warrant of distress in the present proceedings, though learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that separate proceedings had been initiated by the said respondent and the assessment order had been quashed and the matter has been remanded back to the assessing authority. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner bank, however, contends that the matter in issue should be still considered and decided in view of the fact that the petitioner bank is faced with such a situation on numerous occasions. ( 4 ) THE first objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Corporation is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner is not the affected party and it is the respondent No. 3, which is the affected party. I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. There was no occasion for the petitioner bank to have come to court in respect of the warrant of distress issued. Needless to say, if the respondent No. 3 being the assessee in question is aggrieved by any assessment order or the consequential warrant of distress, it is for the assessee to impugn the same in accordance with law. ( 5 ) BE that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner contends on merits of the controversy that there is no provision for execution of such warrant of distress by the respondent Corporation against the bank. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 156 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter to the referred as, the said Act ) in this behalf. It may be noted that the warrant of distress has been issued under Section 156 (1) of the said Act. The provisions of the said Section 156 are as under :- "156. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 156 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter to the referred as, the said Act ) in this behalf. It may be noted that the warrant of distress has been issued under Section 156 (1) of the said Act. The provisions of the said Section 156 are as under :- "156. Recovery of tax.-- (1) If the person liable for the payment of the tax does not, within thirty days from the service of the notice of demand, pay the amount due, such sum together with all costs and the penalty provided for in section 155, may be recovered under a warrant, issued in the form set forth in the Eighth Schedule, by distress and sale of the movable property or the attachment and sale of the immovable property, of the defaulter; PROVIDED that the Commissioner shall not recover any sum the liability for which has been remitted on appeal under the provisions of this Act. (2) every warrant issued under this section shall be signed by the Commissioner. " ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel contends that the expression used is "distress and sale of the movable property", which did not imply that the bank accounts can be attached. Learned counsel in this behalf has referred to the expression "distress" under Section 157 of the said Act. The said provision is as under :- ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel contends that the said provision of distress cannot apply to the money lying in the account. This is further supported by the contention that the money of assessee lying in the account merges with the money of bank and does not remain the money of the assessee. ( 8 ) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The money when deposited with the bank remains the money of the depositor, but in custody of the bank. The expression used in Section 156 (1) refers to "movable property" and the money would certainly fall within the said category. A reading of Sections 156 and 157 of the said Act together, in my considered view, imply that it is open to the respondent Corporation to attach money of the assessee lying with the bank in case the property tax is unpaid. A reading of Sections 156 and 157 of the said Act together, in my considered view, imply that it is open to the respondent Corporation to attach money of the assessee lying with the bank in case the property tax is unpaid. ( 9 ) I am also unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that excess money may be recovered in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 157 (1) (b) of the said Act make it clear that what is sought to be distrained has to be as nearly as possibly equal in value to the amount recoverable. The amount is known and in case of a bank account, this problem would not arise at all since it is only to the extent of dues of the assessee that an attachment can take place and that too subject to availability of money with the bank of the assessee. ( 10 ) IN my considered view, the petition is misconceived and without any merit or substance.