THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
W.P.NO.28941 OF 2019
O R D E R (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"For a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or orders, direction or directions to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for One Time Settlement (OTS), 2019, as notified on 13.08.2019 through letter in SARB-1/HYD/2019-20/BHN/493 dated 07.12.2019 without assigning any reasons, as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and to set aside the same and to issue a consequential direction to the respondents to sanction the OTS benefit to the petitioner under the SBI OTS, 2019, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The Chief Manager/Authorized Officer of the respondent - Bank filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the rejection of the application of the petitioner/borrower under OTS scheme.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bank issued notification dated 13.08.2019 for OTS scheme, and the petitioner is eligible under the said scheme, and accordingly he made application on 21.11.2019, but the respondent - Bank, contrary to the said notification, and without recording any reasons, rejected his application. He further submits that the respondent No.1 is trying to justify the rejection by giving reasons in the counter affidavit. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER1, the impugned order itself shall contain reasons, and they cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order.
1 AIR 1978 SC 851 2 On the other hand Sri Hari Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Bank submits that petitioner is fully aware that he is not eligible for OTS scheme, but in spite of the same, he filed application. He further submits that it is a fact that petitioner is the borrower and he committed default and he is aware of the outstanding amount, and, therefore, the Bank considering the facts and circumstances, and indicating that the petitioner is not eligible for OTS scheme, issued the impugned letter, and hence no exception can be taken.
Since the grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank has rejected the his OTS application without recording any reasons, the averments touching the merits of the case stated in the writ affidavit as well as in the counter affidavit, are not being noted.
The impugned communication of the bank in SARB-1/HYD/2019- 20/BHN/493 dated 07.12.2019, is extracted as under:
"With reference to your letter dated 21.11.2019, we inform you that in terms of Circular - SBI OTS 2019, as quoted by you in your above mentioned letter, you are not eligible to be covered under SBI OTS 2019. Therefore, this branch never issued to you any OTS offer letter under the above scheme viz., SBI OTS 2019.
Hence, your request for extending the OTS 2019 scheme is rejected. You are requested to close the account immediately. In spite of our repeated rejection letters stating that your account is not eligible for the OTS scheme 2019, we are receiving your letters requesting for inclusion in the OTS Scheme 2019. No further correspondence in this regard will be entertained.
This letter is issued without prejudice to Bank's right to proceed with all legal action including action under SARFAESI Act, 2002, against you."
A reading of the above communication discloses that for rejection of the OTS application of the petitioner, Bank has not assigned any reasons, except stating that petitioner is not eligible for grant of OTS, and this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Now the respondents seek to justify their action by filing a detailed counter. It is well settled that 3 as per the law laid down in the above cited decision of the Apex Court, the impugned order itself shall contain reasons, and they cannot be supplemented by way of counter affidavit.
Only on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, without going into other merits of the case, the impugned letter dated 07.12.2019 is set aside.
Respondent - Bank to re-consider the OTS application of the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass orders afresh assigning reasons.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicate above. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
--------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
----------------------------------------------
DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER,J DATE:25--02--2021 AVS