JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner car has been illegally detained at the Indian Overseas Bank, International Banking Branch, 2, Upper Wood Street, Calcutta. 2. The petitioner says that in course of the petitioner's visit to the International Banking Branch on August 7, 2008 the petitioner was arrested by police officials who arrived at the branch and did not permit the petitioner to remove the petitioner's car which was parked within the bank premises. 3. The petitioner subsequently wrote a letter dated November 17, 2008 requesting the bank to allow the petitioner's car to be removed from the bank premises whereupon the bank responded by its letter of November 20, 2008 claiming that officers of Lal Bazar Headquarters of Kolkata Police had directed the Deputy General Manager of the Bank to retain the car at the bank's premises. 4. The State is represented and it is submitted on behalf of the State that the police authorities did not issue any instructions to the bank to retain or to detain the petitioner's car. Though the bank refers to a letter dated January 29, 2009 said to have been issued by the bank to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, it does not appear that the Indian Overseas Bank had any authority to retain the petitioner's car or detain it at the International Banking Branch at Upper Wood Street. In any event, the bank does not say that any written directions had been used by the police to it. 5. The Deputy General Manager of the International Banking Branch of Indian Overseas Bank will ensure that the petitioner's car is returned to the petitioner forthwith and any complaint relating to the functioning of the car and its condition is attended to by the Indian Overseas Bank at its expense and to the petitioner's complete satisfaction. 6. It is regrettable that a nationalized bank has acted in such manner even though the bank may have a justified grievance against the petitioner in respect of certain other matters. It was completely arbitrary and unjustified on the part of the bank to wrongfully withhold the petitioner's property without due sanction of law and, as it now transpires, without any authority or instructions of the police. 7. W. P. No. 4203 (W) of 2009 is disposed of. It was completely arbitrary and unjustified on the part of the bank to wrongfully withhold the petitioner's property without due sanction of law and, as it now transpires, without any authority or instructions of the police. 7. W. P. No. 4203 (W) of 2009 is disposed of. The bank will also pay costs assessed at 300 GM to the petitioner in addition to restoring the petitioner's car to good condition. 8. Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Appeal disposed of.