Kerala High Court
State Bank Of Travancore vs K.S.Anil Kumar on 2 July, 2021
WA No.825/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WA NO. 825 OF 2021
(FROM JUDGMENT DATED 27/01/2021 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE 1N
WP(C)NO.17581/2016)
APPELLANTS[RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7):
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA TRIVANDRUM - 695
012, (NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (NOW STATE BANK OF
INDIA), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.
3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (NOW STATE BANK
OF INDIA), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR AND SAMG), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, (NOW
STATE BANK OF INDIA), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695
012.
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION), DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK
OF TRAVANCORE(NOW STATE BANK OF INDIA), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.
6. THE CHIEF MANAGER (ENQUIRY), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE (NOW STATE
BANK OF INDIA), HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 012.
BY ADV.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:[PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT]
1. K.S.ANIL KUMAR AGED 54, S/O.LATE K. K. SREEDHARAN, SREESARAS,
POOTHOTTA P.O., MANAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM -
682 307.
2. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS,
SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 110 001.
BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA FOR R2.
WA No.825/2021 2/5
PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF IN THE WRIT APPEAL STATING THAT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO STAY THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENT DATED
27/1/2021 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W P [C] NO. 17581/2016.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ON 2/7/2021 UPON PERUSING
THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA No.825/2021 3/5
EXT P-14 : TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2006 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXT P-16 : TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 03.02.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
WA No.825/2021 4/5
ALEXANDER THOMAS & A. BADHARUDEEN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 825 of 2021
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 27.1.2021 in
WP(C) No. 17581 of 2016]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2021
ORDER
Issue notice before admission to R-1 (writ petitioner) by
speed post returnable within 2 weeks. The appellants' counsel is also
permitted to serve notice on R-1 through Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose,
the learned advocate who had appeared for that party at the WP(C)
stage, and file a memo to show service of notice in that regard.
2. Notice before admission to R-2 (Union of India) has
been taken by Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India.
3. It is urged by Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing
Counsel for the State Bank of Travancore, appearing for the
appellants that all statutory remedies provided in terms of the
statutory regulations of the appellant Bank have been duly
exhausted by the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) including the
review, and the statutory regulations contemplate only one review
and the review was dismissed as early as on 12.12.2006 as per
Ext.P-14 and thereafter, the writ petitioner has filed a petition styled
as a review as per Ext.P-16 in the year 2016, which was almost
10 years after the dismissal of the review remedy. Hence, it is urged
WA No.825/2021 5/5
W.A. No. 825 of 2021
..2..
that it was not right and proper for the learned Single Judge to have
directed as per the impugned judgment that the second review should
also be considered by the appellant bank at this distance of time,
when as a matter of fact the second review is not maintainable as per
the statutory regulations, etc.
4. Taking note of abovesaid submissions, we are of the view
that the appellants have made out a strong prima facie case in the
matter. Since it is apprehended by the appellants that contempt
proceedings may also be initiated in the meanwhile, the balance of
convenience also appears to be tipped in favour of the appellants.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the operation and enforcement of the
impugned judgment dated 27.1.2021 rendered by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C).No.17581/2016 will stand stayed and shall be kept in
abeyance. This order will be in force for a period of 2 months.
List the case on 26.7.2021 in the Admission List.
Hand over to both sides.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
MMG
02-07-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
