Telangana High Court
M/S. Sri Krishna Tractors And Farm ... vs State Bank Of India And Another on 25 February, 2021
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy, Shameem Akther
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.
AIR 1978 SC 851
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
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
