ORDER :- This Court has heard the Learned Advocates for the respective parties. Having heard the said Learned Advocates, it appears that the facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows :- 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioners are in the business of processing tea leaves and they own a Tea Garden in Assam and that the petitioners have been compelled to file the writ petition because the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities, have refused to release the security that was pledged for securing the loan and/or advance made to the petitioner No. 1 by the said respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities through its branch office at Jalpaiguri. The petitioners have stated in their writ petition that the petitioner No. 2 being one of the Directors of the petitioner No. 1 has common interest in two other companies namely, SRK Tea Processing Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SRK) and Gurjangjhora Tea and Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as GTI) and that the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI are run and managed by the petitioner No. 2 and the said three companies are known in the market as Kalyani Group. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities advanced loan on the security of assets to the said three companies and the loan accounts are independent and separate and that the mortgage of immovable properties by way of security, obtained by the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities from the said three companies, are also independent and separate. The petitioners have further alleged that there was no common guarantee or mortgage so far as the petitioner No. 1 and the other two companies are concerned and there was no cross-guarantee also. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 and SRK and GTI have been maintaining their accounts and running their business separately and independently though these are run and managed by the Kalyani Group. The petitioners have alleged that the financial services that was extended by the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities was never beneficial to the petitioner No. 1's interest particularly owing to untimely sanction of loan at a higher rate of interest. In short, the petitioners have been suffering huge loss of profit owing to the alleged deficiency in service and/or negligence on the part of the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities. In short, the petitioners have been suffering huge loss of profit owing to the alleged deficiency in service and/or negligence on the part of the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities. The petitioners have alleged that in spite of several representations being made to the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities, the said respondents did not look into the grievance of the petitioners, and the petitioners have approached the respondent-UCO Bank-authorities and requested the respondent-UCO Bank of India-authorities to extend finance by taking over the accounts lying with the Jalpaiguri Branch of the said Central Bank of India respondents. The respondent-UCO Bank authorities sanctioned the credit facility in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioners made a written representation dated 20-3-2007 to the respondent No. 1 to release the security of assets being the lease deeds of Bargara Tea Estate and to provide the no objection certificate (in short, NOC) to the Authorised Officer of M/s. UCO-Bank, Jalpaiguri subject to clearing of the petitioner No. 1's debit balance lying with the respondent No. 6 by Banker's Cheque of UCO-Bank, Jalpaiguri. The petitioners, in the said letter dated 20-3-2007, requested the respondent No. 6 to provide the details of the dues in respect of the petitioner No. 1's loan accounts. It appears that several correspondences were exchanged between the petitioners and the Central Bank of India-authorities in this regard. It appears that a letter dated 8-5-2007 was written by the respondent No. 6 to the respondent No. 10 acknowledging receipt of a certain letter and a pay order for a certain amount from the respondent No. 10 for depositing in various advance accounts of the petitioner No. 1. It further appears from the said letter that the respondent No. 6 had referred the matter to the higher authorities and that till the respondent No. 6 further hears from such higher authorities the matter is kept in abeyance. It further appears that the respondent No. 10 wrote a letter dated 10-5-2007 to the respondent No. 6 reminding the respondent No. 6 with regard to the pay order given to the respondent No. 6 towards full repayment of the outstanding dues in several loan accounts standing in the name of the petitioner No. 1 and requesting the respondent No. 6 to release the securities at the earliest. 3. 3. Subsequently, by a letter dated 12-5-2007 the respondent No. 6 wrote to the petitioner No. 1 stating that out of the three companies of K. K. Kalyani Group only the petitioner No. 1 is doing well and the other two companies are running into loss and that there is a common guarantor (Mr. K. K. Kalyani) to all the three companies and that the request for allowing to shift only one account, i.e. of the petitioner No. 1, cannot be considered in isolation since Mr. K. K. Kalyani owns all the three companies. The respondent No. 6 further stated in the said letter that Mr. K. K. Kalyani should take all the three accounts of the Group to UCO Bank and NOC to shift the accounts can be given only when the entire Group of accounts are shifted. Such letter dated 12-5-2007 has been challenged in the writ petition by the petitioners and the petitioners have further prayed, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 and its men and agents should be directed to release the security of assets in favour of the respondent No. 7 against the payment of a certain sum of money (as mentioned in the writ petition) towards outstanding dues of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid pay order, which was issued by UCO Bank, was retained by the Central Bank of India for sometime and thereafter it was returned to the UCO Bank, and the entire amount which was outstanding, according to the petitioners, was duly tendered. The said learned counsel submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 do not have any right to withhold the security any more. According to the petitioners' learned counsel the amount that was tendered to the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities should be accepted as undisputed since the Central Bank of India has not shown either in the affidavit or otherwise any higher amount to be due and payable by the petitioners. The said learned counsel has questioned and disputed the existence of the concept of Group as contended by the Central Bank of India. According to the petitioners' Learned counsel the three companies are separate juristic personalities and loans were granted on the basis of the requirement of individual companies taking into consideration their financial strength individually and separately. The said learned counsel has questioned and disputed the existence of the concept of Group as contended by the Central Bank of India. According to the petitioners' Learned counsel the three companies are separate juristic personalities and loans were granted on the basis of the requirement of individual companies taking into consideration their financial strength individually and separately. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the sanction letters were separate and the asset of one company was not taken into consideration for grant of loan to another company. According to the petitioners' learned counsel the fact that Mr. K. K. Kalyani gave guarantees in respect of the different accounts of the aforesaid three companies cannot stand in the way of the Central Bank of India-authorities to release the securities of assets furnished by the petitioners. According to the said learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K. K. Kalyani's guarantee in respect of GTI and SRK will remain valid and operative in respect of the loan accounts of the said two companies even if the security furnished by the petitioners is released by the Central Bank of India-authorities. 4. The learned counsel for the UCO Bank-respondent-authorities supported the petitioners' case and submitted that the Central Bank of India-authorities are illegally withholding the securities of assets furnished by the petitioners in spite of the fact that full repayment of the petitioner No. 1's outstanding dues in respect of its loan accounts was made by issuing a pay order in favour of the Central Bank of India as mentioned in the respondent No. 10's letter dated 10-5-2007, as mentioned above. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities filed an affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the said respondents and contested the writ petition. The said learned counsel submitted that the concept of Group in respect of the aforesaid companies is not new and it has been in existence for a very long time and for such purpose he referred to the annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The said learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid three companies are under Krishna Kumar Kalyani Group and the petitioners have asked the Central Bank of India-authorities to release the cross-guarantee as would be evident from the aforesaid annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition. The said learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid three companies are under Krishna Kumar Kalyani Group and the petitioners have asked the Central Bank of India-authorities to release the cross-guarantee as would be evident from the aforesaid annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition. The said learned counsel emphasized on the fact that Sri K. K. Kalyani had signed the letter of guarantee in respect of all the three companies which took loans/ advances from the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities and that cross-guarantee is signed by the directors of the company and that common directors have signed documents as well as letter of guar- antee. According to the said learned counsel, the outstanding dues is repayable by the Group of the companies and/or by the directors in personal capacity. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that : the guarantor and borrower are jointly and severally liable to the creditor. For such submission, reference was made to Sections 126, 128, 129 and 130 of the Contract Act. The said learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is a profit making company but the other two companies (SRK and GTI) are losing concerns and as such it will be difficult to recover dues if the profit making company only is allowed to shift its accounts with the Central Bank of India-authorities to another bank. It appeared that much emphasis was given on such submission by the said learned counsel. The said learned counsel raised the question in this regard to the following effect : can the Central Bank of India-authorities, in exercise of ordinary prudence, allow the petitioner No. 1 to shift its accounts from the said bank leaving the other two companies (SRK and GTI) which are losing concerns with the said bank which may affect the chances of recovery of the loan amounts. It has been argued on behalf of the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities that very rationally and reasonably keeping in mind the legal responsibility of the guarantors of the two losing concerns and other factors, the Central Bank of India-authorities have acted bona fide following the principles of natural justice and there was no illegality in asking the petitioners to either take away all the three accounts of the said three companies or to maintain all the said three accounts with the Central Bank of India-authorities. 6. 6. The said learned counsel submitted that the petitioners should be directed to either pay the entire outstanding dues in respect of all the said three companies to the Central Bank of India or to retain all the said three accounts with the said bank till the payment of all the debts of the said three companies. 7. The said learned counsel cited a decision reported in AIR 2005 SC 2080 (State of N.C. T. of Delhi v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo) on the question as to what is the scope of judicial interference in matters of administrative decision. In paragraph 15 of the said reports it has been observed that "It is trite law that exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary". In paragraph 16 of the said report, it has been observed that "One can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground is 'illegality' the second 'irrationality', and the third 'procedural impropriety'." The learned counsel for the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities relied upon the following observation at paragraph 20 of the said report, 'Therefore, to arrive at a decision on 'reasonableness' the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of the law, and not one which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at, having regard to the above principles, and must have been a bona fide one. The decision could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for that authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its view." 8. The said learned counsel for the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities cited another decision reported at AIR 2006 SC 651 (State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash) and referred to paragraph 7 of the said report which is quoted as follows :- "7. The policy-decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. The policy-decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy-decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government." 9. It appears that the dispute, in the facts of the said reported case, was with regard to the policy decision taken by the State in the matter of allotment of quarters by rotation to police personnel. 10. From the submissions made by the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties it appears to this Court that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the loan agreements entered into by and between the Central Bank of India-authorities and the aforesaid three companies were all separate agreements that is to say that the loan agreement between the said Bank and the petitioner No. 1 was not in any way connected with the loan agreements between the said bank and the other two companies (SRK and GTI). There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that all the aforesaid three companies are separate and distinct persons in the eye of law having their respective separate and individual existence and identities. There is nothing on record to show that grant of loan by the Central Bank of India to the petitioner No. 1 was in any way connected to the grant of loan by the said bank to the other two companies or that such grant of loan to the said three companies by the said bank were inter-dependent. It may be that Mr. Krishna Kumar Kalyani had signed the letter of guarantee in respect of all the aforesaid three companies which took loans/advances from the Central Bank of India and common directors of the said companies have signed documents as well as letter of guarantee, but such acts on the part of the said Mr. It may be that Mr. Krishna Kumar Kalyani had signed the letter of guarantee in respect of all the aforesaid three companies which took loans/advances from the Central Bank of India and common directors of the said companies have signed documents as well as letter of guarantee, but such acts on the part of the said Mr. Krishna Kumar Kalyani and/or the said common directors do not in any way affect the individualistic and separate identity of each of the aforesaid three companies. Even though the learned counsel for the Central Bank of India-authorities has argued that the outstanding dues in respect of the loan accounts in question is repayable by the Group of the companies, there is nothing on record to support the said agreement advanced by the said learned counsel. The other submission of the said learned counsel that the guarantor and the borrower are jointly and severally liable to the creditor also does not in any way help the respondents-Central Bank of India-authorities because the liability, if any, of the said Mr. K. K. Kalyani and/or the common directors, as alleged, in respect of the loans granted by the said bank in favour of the other two companies (SRK and GTI) will not be affected under the law even if the security in respect of the loan advanced to the petitioner No. 1 by the Central Bank of India-authorities is released. The main thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Central Bank of India-authorities that the petitioner No. 1 is the only profit making company and the other two companies (SRK and GTI) are losing concerns and therefore the petitioner No. 1 alone cannot be allowed to shift its accounts from the Central Bank of India to the UCO Bank is not supported by any legal foundation. The learned counsel for the Central Bank of India-authorities failed to show any provision of law and/or any legal right by which the Central Bank of India can withhold the release of the security of assets furnished by the petitioner No. 1 even when the petitioner No. 1 is ready and willing to repay all the outstanding dues that are payable by the petitioner No. 1 to the said Central Bank of India-respondent-authorities in respect of the loan accounts of the petitioner No. 1 with the said Central Bank of India-authorities. 11. 11. This Court is of the view that only because the Central Bank of India has made an allegation that the other two companies (SRK and GTI) are losing concerns and therefore the petitioners cannot be allowed to shift only the accounts of the petitioner No. 1, it can hardly be a valid ground for the Central Bank of India-authorities to withhold the release of the security of assets furnished by the petitioner No. 1 even if the petitioner No. 1 is ready and willing to repay all its outstanding dues to the Central Bank of India-authorities in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts. The stand taken by the Central Bank of India-authorities that the petitioners may either take away all the accounts of the said three companies or maintain all the said three accounts does not really reflect that the Central Bank of India has any genuine grievance against the petitioners since the Central Bank of India is also willing to allow the petitioners to maintain all the three accounts with the said Bank. In any event, such stand taken by the Central Bank of India cannot be justified on any legal basis. The simple question in the instant case is whether or not the petitioners have a legal right to claim release of the security of assets by the Central Bank of India if the petitioners repay all the outstanding dues in respect of their aforesaid loan accounts to the Central Bank of India. 12. In the case of State of N.C.T. of Delhi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe that exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is a manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to observe in the said reported case that the decision of the administrator must have been within the four corners of the law. In the event a borrower is willing to repay all the outstanding dues to the lender, it is only fair, proper and legal, that the lender, on being satisfied with such repayment, should release the security of assets that might have been furnished by the borrower at the time of taking loan. In the event a borrower is willing to repay all the outstanding dues to the lender, it is only fair, proper and legal, that the lender, on being satisfied with such repayment, should release the security of assets that might have been furnished by the borrower at the time of taking loan. It appears that in the instant case the stand taken by the Central Bank of India-authorities is illegal, irrational and also suffers from the procedural impropriety. The facts and circumstances of the State of Orissa's case (supra) are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the instant case and it is difficult to apply the said reported case to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the instant case the question of the Court substituting its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in policy decision matters does not arise. The question that is involved in the instant case has already been indicated above. Of course, this Court is not making any observation with regard to the actual amount that may be due and payable by the petitioner No. 1 to the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts since it will be for the petitioners and the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities to settle such amount of outstanding dues, if any, amongst themselves or before the appropriate forum, if the occasion so arises. It, however, appears from records that the Central Bank of India-authorities have not disputed the amount alleged by the petitioners to be repayable in respect of their loan accounts with the Central Bank of India-authorities. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the view that the stand taken by the Central Bank of India-authorities, as already discussed above, is not justified and is an illegal one. This Court is of the further view that if the writ petitioners repay all the outstanding dues to the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities in respect of all the loan accounts of the petitioner No. 1 with the Central Bank of India-authorities with regard to which the security of assets was furnished by the petitioners, the respondent-Central Bank of India-authorities should release the security of assets in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in accordance with law. 14. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the writ petitioners to apply before the Central Bank of India-respondent-authorities concerned for release of the security of assets furnished to the petitioners in connection with the petitioner No. 1's loan accounts with the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities on the petitioners being ready and willing to repay all the outstanding dues that may be payable by the petitioners to the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities, in the manner permissible under law, and if such an application is made by the petitioners the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities shall intimate the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of such application, by an appropriate notice the outstanding amount that may be found due and payable by the petitioners to the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities in respect of the above-mentioned loan accounts of the petitioner No. 1. If the petitioners repay all the outstanding dues in respect of the loan accounts of the petitioner No. 1 with the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities as may be found payable by the petitioners in the manner permissible under law, then in that event the Central Bank of India-respondents-authorities shall release the aforesaid security of assets in respect of such loan accounts of the petitioner No. 1 in the manner permissible under law within four days from the date of such repayment of all the outstanding dues by the petitioners. 15. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be given to the Learned Advocates for the respective parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. Order accordingly.