Mr. Muhammed Taha vs The Banking Ombudsman
2023 Latest Caselaw 9119 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 26862 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
           MR. MUHAMMED TAHA, AGED 29 YEARS, PROPRIETOR,
           M/S.ARABIAN FOOD COURT, DOOR NO.XII/1, KUNDANNOOR,
           MARADU, PIN - 682304

          BY ADVS.
          SUNIL SHANKER
          VIDYA GANGADHARAN
          JERIN GEORGE


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING,
           BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

    2     THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B
          NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL
          DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033

    3     CANARA BANK, MARADU BRANCH, KURIYAPPILLY TOWERS, NEAR
          P.S.MISSION HOSPITAL, MARADU, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY
          ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER., PIN - 682304


OTHER PRESENT:
           SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC FOR R3


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.26862 of 2023

                                         2



                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
                ---------------------
                   W.P (C) No.26862 of 2023
             ---------------------------
              Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"a. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P7 and set aside the same by the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order.

b. Direct the 1st Respondent to pass fresh orders on Complaint No. N202223015001623 submitted by the Petitioner, after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of replying to the documents submitted by the 3rd Respondent and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing by the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order.

c. Grant costs of the case.

d. To issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case." (SIC)

2. The main challenge in this writ petition is against

Ext.P7 order passed by the 1st respondent. The grievance of

the petitioner is that Ext.P7 is an order passed without giving

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner

relies Ext.P8 reply received from the office of the RBI

Ombudsman, from which it is clear that no hearing is given to W.P (C) No.26862 of 2023

the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. The

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice to

the 1st and 2nd respondent are not necessary because they

are formal parties.

4. The only grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 is

an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P7 would not show that it is an

order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P8 also would show that the

petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore,

without expressing any opinion on merit, Ext.P7 can be set

side and there can be a direction to the 1 st respondent to

reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is free

to produce additional documents also before the 1 st

respondent to substantiate his case.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with following

directions:-

 W.P (C) No.26862 of 2023





          1)    Ext.P7 is set aside.
          2)    The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider

the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible.

3) The petitioner is free to produce additional documents also before the 1st respondent for substantiating his case.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

bng W.P (C) No.26862 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26862/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION MEMORANDUM DATED 5.8.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.04.2022 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 24.06.2022 BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 30.5.2022 ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF INDIA

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.7.2022 OF THE CENTRALIZED RECEIPT AND PROCESSING CENTRE (CRPC) OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 27.6.2023

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT