Sri T. Babu Rao vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 777 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                         &
        HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                           WP No.4943 of 2021

ORDER::

This writ petition is filed seeking issue a writ or direction,

more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus to set aside

the letter dated 06-11-2020 issued by the respondent-bank in

respect of the petitioner loan account No. 5539066500000069 as

being illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice

and consequently direct the respondent-bank to consider the OTS

application dated 29-09-2020 in terms of Circular No. 2218/2020,

dated 29-09-2020 in the interest of justice.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended

that rejection of petitioner's application for settlement of loan

account under OTS scheme on the ground that the loan account is

ineligible under the guidelines issued vide Circular No.2218/2020

dated 29-09-2020, without disclosing any reasons is

unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, the

petitioner's loan account is eligible for revival/restructing under

the OTS scheme. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent-bank submits that as per the guidelines issued under

the Circular No.2218/2020, dated 29-09-2020, petitioner's case

was considered and as his loan account was not eligible, the

impugned order has been passed, the same cannot be faulted.

03. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in MOHINDER SINGH GILL vs.

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, (1978 1 SCC 405), at para 8 of

the judgment held thus:-

"It is true that when an order is passed, be it

administrative or quasi-judicial in nature, necessarily it would

contain grounds or reasons for invalidating the action taken.

The authorities cannot subsequently explain their actions by

way of affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, this Court insisted

upon the public orders made in exercise of the statutory

power, should contain reasons and the order should contain

the kind of action taken by them. Therefore, they cannot be

permitted to substitute their actions or contents of orders by

reference to any affidavits or other actions which did not find

place in the order."

04. The perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the

respondent-bank except referring to the above said Circular, stated

no reasons for rejection of the petitioner's application under the

OTS scheme. OTS scheme is a benefit evolved by the RBI under

which the eligible bad debt loan account holders are entitled for

settlement under the scheme. Non speaking order shadows the

decision taken howsoever correct. In the circumstnaces, the

impugned order is set aisde and the respondent-bank is directed to

consider the OTS application of the petitioner afresh and pass

appropraite orders thereon in accordance with law. It is needless

to observe that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the matter. The writ pettiion is allowed to the extent

indicated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

_________________________ Dr.SHAMEEM AKTHER,J

Dated: 16-03-2021 NRG

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY & HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

WP No.4943 of 2021

Dated: 16-03-2021 NRG