Delhi High Court
Nand Kishore & Anr vs The Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi ... on 7 February, 2018
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 7 February, 2018
W.P. (C) 1137/2018
NAND KISHORE & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Apoorv Kurup with Ms. Isha
Mittal, Advocates.
versus
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, NEW DELHI (I)
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. K.S. Parihar with Mr. H.S.
Parihar, Advocates for RBI.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1) Issue notice. Mr. K.S. Parihar, accepts notice on behalf of
respondent no.2/RBI. Mr. Parihar says he does not wish to file
a counter affidavit.
1.1) In view of the order I propose to pass, notice need not to
be issued to respondent no. 1, 3 and 4.
2) There are two substantive prayers, which are sought for,
in the instant writ petition. Via the first prayer, the petitioners
seek issuance of a direction to the RBI to ensure expeditious
disposal of the complaint dated 29.9.2017, filed with the
respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman. The second prayer,
which is, an alternative prayer, seeks a direction qua respondent
nos.3&4. The direction sought is that respondent no. 3 and 4
should accept the soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes presented to
them by the petitioners.
3) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that
because respondent nos.3 and 4 were not accepting the
soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes presented by them in line with
the Reserve Bank of India (Note Refund) Rules, 2009 and the
Master Circular dated 3.7.2017, they were constrained to
approach the respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman.
4) The record shows that two separate complaints have been
filed against each of the banks, i.e., respondent nos.3&4.
Insofar as the complaint lodged against respondent no.4 (ICICI
Bank) is concerned, it appears that the petitioner no.1 has
received the computer generated response which shows that the
said complaint has been disposed of (see Annexure P-8). As
regard to the other complaint, which is lodged against
respondent no.3/PNB, the same has been registered but the
petitioners say that they have not received any response as to
what is the outcome of the complaint lodged with the said
respondent.
4.1) Mr. Parihar submits that respondent no.1/Banking
Ombudsman is duty bound to dispose of the complaints once
lodged, if not already disposed of.
5) I may also note that the aspect concerning whether or not
a person could carry on the business of exchanging
soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes etc. came up for consideration
before this Court in the matter of: Ashok Kumar (Karta) & Ors.
vs. The Deputy Governor & Ors, which was registered as
W.P.(C)5026/2014. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2016
upheld the contention of the petitioners in that matter.
Therefore, this issue, which is, whether or not petitioners herein
can continue in the business of exchanging
soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes, for the moment, stands
covered by the said judgment.
6) Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the
circumstances, the respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman is
directed to dispose of the complaints filed by the petitioners
expeditiously and, in any case, within ten weeks from today, if
not already disposed of. Parties concerned will be called for
hearing and thereafter a reasoned order will be passed by the
respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman, albeit, in accordance
with law.
7) Writ Petition stands disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY,7 2018
vikas
