Allahabad High Court
M/S Ajmani Leasing & Finance Ltd.Thru. ... vs U.O.I.Thru.Ministry Of Finance ... on 16 December, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 ALL 2265, (2020) 1 ALL WC 865 (2020) 2 ADJ 1 (ALL), (2020) 2 ADJ 1 (ALL)
Bench: Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 1 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 34971 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Ajmani Leasing & Finance Ltd.Thru. Managing Director Respondent :- U.O.I.Thru.Ministry Of Finance Deptt.Of Financial Ser.& Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Shishir Chandra,Vishnu Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G. Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
2. The petitioner, which is a non-banking financial company, is aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the respondent no.3-Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Kanpur under Section 45-IA(6) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as "1934 Act"), whereby permission granted to the petitioner's company for carrying the business of Non-Banking Financial Institution (NBFI) has been ceased. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.1-Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Union of India, under Section 45-IA (7) of 1934 Act, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner, bearing No.F No. 25/247/2019/BOA-II : in re: M/s Ajmani Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India, against the order dated 30.10.2018, has been dismissed.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's company was incorporated on 12.8.1988 under the Companies Act, 1956 and was granted a Certificate of Registration, bearing No. A-12.00284 dated 10.1.2001 by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "Bank") and on reclassification of the Company as an Asset Finance Company, CoR No.A-1200284, dated 21.9.2007 was issued to it, under the provisions of Section 45-IA of 1934 Act to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution (NBFI) subject to fulfilling the requirements under Chapter III-B of the 1934 Act and complying the directions, regulations including prudential norms issued by the Bank from time to time as also the terms and conditions under which the said Certificate of Registration was issued to it. The said Certificate of Registration was cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India vide order dated 30.10.2018 in terms of Section 45-IA (6) of 1934 Act on account of its failure to comply with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India as regard achievement of the specified Net Owned Fund (NOF).
4. The petitioner's company, thereafter, had challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.10.2018 by filing appeal, which was registered as F No. 25/247/2019/BOA-II : in re: M/s Ajmani Leasing & Finance Ltd. Vs. Reserve Bank of India. The appellate authority, vide order dated 26.08.2019, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the writ petitioner/appellant company has failed to achieve a NOF of Rs.200.00 before 1st April, 2017 and has also not given any valid reasons for not achieving the same. Paras 5 and 6 of the order dated 26.08.2019 (supra) are relevant, which reads as under :-
"5. In its reply dated 20th June, 2018 to the Show Cause Notice of RBI, the appellant company had stated that their business in previous years had gone through tough and stressful situation due to inconsistent state government policies towards Vikram and Auto permits in Lucknow. It was a very hard time for the industry and as a result, the Non-Performing Assets increased. The appellant further requested RBI to give time till June, 2019 to meet the requirements of the RBI notification. In his appeal also, the appellant has reiterated his request for time upto June, 2019. In addition, the appellant company has raised the issues of natural justice and not being granted reasonable opportunity of being heard.
6. After going through the records and hearing the arguments put before me, it is observed that the RBI circular dated 10th November, 2014 read with notification dated 27th March, 2015 had clearly prescribed a NOF of Rs.200.00 lakh as on 31st March, 2017 for NBFCs to commence or carry on the business of NBFI. It was also stated in the circular that NBFCs failing to achieve the prescribed ceiling within the stipulated time period shall not be eligible to hold the CoR as NBFCs and RBI will initiate the process for cancellation of CoR against such NBFCs. The appellant company, in its reply dated 20th June, 2018 to the SCN, had sought time upto June, 2019 which was not granted by the RBI and the CoR was cancelled. As regards the contentions of the appellant invoking principles of natural justice for not being granted reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancellation of CoR, it is observed that RBI has specifically vide letter dated 19th October, 2015 specified the details of its notification dated 27th March, 2015 and advised the appellant to submit plans for increasing the NOF to the prescribed levels in view of its NOF being only Rs.88.89 lakh as on 31st March, 2015. Thus, ample opportunity was provided to the appellant. Its contention that due to inconsistent policy on autos they faced hardships cannot be taken as a reason for not following a statutory requirement of doing business. It is observed that reasonable opportunity of being heard does not necessarily mean an opportunity of personal hearing."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted the fact that the notification dated 27.03.2015 specifying Rs.200 Lakhs as NOF for NBFCs to commence or carry on business has not been challenged by the petitioner. However, he submits that while passing the impugned order dated 26.08.2019, the appellate authority erred in not considering the fact that prior to passing the order dated 30.10.2018, no opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 26.08.2019 on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of hearing and the respondents have acted in a most unreasonable manner without considering the reasons stated by the petitioner in reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The Bank in exercise of the powers under sub- Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 45-IA of the 1934 Act, and in supersession of Notification No.132/CGM (VSNM)-99 dated 20.04.1999, specified Rs.200 Lakhs as NOF requirement for an NBFC to commence or carry on the business of Non-Banking Financial Institutions. The notification provided that an NBFC holding a Combined Operating Ratio (CoR) issued by the Reserve Bank of India, may continue to carry on the business of a Non-Banking Financial Institution, if such company has NOF of (i) 100 Lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2016; and (ii) 200 Lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2017.
9. The writ petitioner is a NBFC who was granted CoR in terms of Section 45- IA of the 1934 Act. The respondents do not dispute the power of the Reserve Bank of India to fix the monetary limit of NOF required to be furnished by NBFCs. In fact, this power is traceable to Section 45- IA(a)(b) of the Act. The writ petitioner having not disputed the power of the Reserve Bank of India to fix the NOF, can obviously not challenge the date fixed by the Reserve Bank of India for complying with the said norms.
10. The notification dated 27.03.2015 applies to NBFCs who seek to commence business and also to the existing NBFCs who want to carry on the business. Thus, the writ petitioner was forewarned as early as March, 2015 that, if he wants to carry on business of NBFCs, he has to achieve NOF of 100 lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2016 and 200 Lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2017. Admittedly, the writ petitioner did not achieve the said monetary limit fixed in the notification within the cut of date.
11. What is required to be seen is whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the CoR granted to the writ petitioner for non-compliance of the NOF requirement within the time stipulated. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 07.06.2018. The attention of the writ petitioner was invited to the CoR issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 45-IA of the 1934 Act and the respondents were reminded that as per the provisions of Section 45- IA(6) of the 1934 Act, by which the Reserve Bank of India is empowered to cancel the CoR issued to a company on account of any of the reasons referred to in sub-Clauses (i) to (v) of that sub-Section. Further, the respondents were informed that in terms of the Revised Regulatory Framework for NBFCs (RBI/2014-15/520DNBR (PD) CC.No.024/03.10.001/2014-15) read with notification dated 27.03.2015, the Reserve Bank of India had specified Rs.200 lakhs of rupees as the NOF required for NBFCs to commence or carry on the business of non-banking financial institution.
12. It was submitted that as per the records available with the RBI, the writ petitioner was holding CoR on the date of issuance of the aforementioned direction and has failed to achieve the NOF of 200 lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2017, thus, violating the provisions under which the Company was permitted to continue the business of a non-banking financial institution. Thus, the writ petitioner was informed that he has acted in violation of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of its powers under Chapter III- B of the 1934 Act while conducting its business as a non-banking financial institution. The writ petitioner was called upon to show cause within fifteen days of the receipt of the order as to why the CoR issued to him should not be cancelled under Section 45-IA(6) of the 1934 Act and penal action be not initiated against the writ petitioner for offences punishable under Section 58 of the 1934 Act.
13. The writ petitioner submitted his reply within the time permitted in which, he accepted the fact that he has not complied with the requirement of NOF of 200 lakhs of rupees before April 1, 2017. The writ petitioner stated that his business has been affected due to the inconsistent State Government policies towards Vikram and auto permits in Lucknow, as a result the non-performing assets increased, and the Courts have failed in providing timely justice which may have helped the company recover its outstanding dues. Accordingly, he sought for withdrawal of the show cause notice. The respondents passed an order dated 30.10.2018 rejecting the reply given by the writ petitioner as not being satisfactory and also having violated the statutory provisions contained in Section 45-M of the 1934 Act, cancelled the CoR in terms of Section 45- IA(6) of the 1934 Act.
14. To consider the submissions of the writ petitioner, we need to refer to Section 45-IA of 1934 Act which is as follows:-
"45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter or in any other law for the time being in force, no non-banking financial company shall commence or carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution without-
(a) obtaining a certificate of registration issued under this Chapter; and
(b) having the net owned fund of twenty five lakh rupees or such other amount, not exceeding two hundred lakhs, as the bank may, be notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
(2) Every non-banking financial company shall make an application for registration to the bank in such form as the bank may specify:
Provided that a non-banking financial company in existence on the commencement of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997 shall make an application for registration to the bank before the expiry of six months from such commencement and notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) may continue to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution until a certificate of registration is issued to it or rejection of application for registration is communicated to it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), a non-banking financial company in existence on the commencement of the Reserve Bank of India (Amendment) Act, 1997 and having a net owned fund of less than twenty five lakh rupees may, for the purpose of enabling such company to fulfill the requirement of the net owned fund, continue to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution-
(i) for a period of three years from such commencement; or
(ii) for such further period as the bank may, after recording the reasons in writing for so doing, extend, subject to the condition that such company shall, within three months of fulfilling the requirement of the net owned fund, inform the bank about such fulfilment:
Provided that the period allowed to continue business under this sub-section shall in no case exceed six years in the aggregate.
(4) The Bank may, for the purpose of considering the application for registration, require to be satisfied by an inspection of the books of the non-banking financial company or otherwise that the following conditions are fulfilled:-
(a) that the non-banking financial company is or shall be in a position to pay its present or future depositors in full as and when their claims accrue;
(b) that the affairs of the non-banking financial company are not being or are not likely to be conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of its present or future depositors;
(c) that the general character of the management or the proposed management of the non-banking financial company shall not be prejudicial to the public interest or the interests of its depositors;
(d) that the non-banking financial company has adequate capital structure and earning prospects;
(e) that the public interest shall be served by the grant of certificate of registration to the non-banking financial company to commence or to carry on the business in India;
(f) that the grant of certificate of registration shall not be prejudicial to the operation and consolidation of the financial sector consistent with monetary stability and economic growth considering such other relevant factors which the bank may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; and
(g) any other condition, fulfilment of which in the opinion of the bank, shall be necessary to ensure that the commencement of or carrying on of the business in India by a non-banking financial company shall not be prejudicial to the public interest or in the interest of the depositors.
(5) The Bank may, after being satisfied that the conditions specified in sub-section (4) are fulfilled, grant a certificate of registration subject to such conditions which it may consider fit to impose.
(6) The Bank may cancel a certificate of registration granted to a non-banking financial company under this section if such company-
(i) ceases to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution in India; or
(ii) has failed to comply with any condition subject to which the certificate of registration had been issued to it; or
(iii) at any time fails to fulfil any of the conditions referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (4); or
(iv) fails-
(a) to comply with any direction issued by the bank under the provisions of this Chapter; or
(b) to maintain accounts in accordance with the requirements of any law or any direction or order issued by the bank under the provisions of this Chapter; or
(c) to submit or offer for inspection its books of accounts and other relevant documents when so demanded by an inspecting authority of the bank; or
(v) has been prohibited from accepting deposit by an order made by the bank under the provisions of this Chapter and such order has been in force for a period of not less than three months:
Provided that before cancelling a certificate of registration on the ground that the non-banking financial company has failed to comply with the provisions of clause (ii) or has failed to fulfil any of the conditions referred to in clause (iii) the bank, unless it is of the opinion that the delay in cancelling the certificate of registration shall be prejudicial to public interest or the interest of the depositors or the non-banking financial company, shall give an opportunity to such company on such terms as the bank may specify for taking necessary steps to comply with such provisions or fulfilment of such condition:
Provided further that before making any order of cancellation of certificate of registration, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard"
15. The 1934 Act was enacted to constitute the Reserve Bank of India to regulate the issue of bank notes and keeping of reserves of the view of securing monetary stability in the country and generally operate the currency and credit of the country to its advantage. The Reserve Bank of India being an expert body with regard to operation of the credit system for securing monetary stability in the country and it is expected to take decisions by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, laws and the policies of the government, and in this regard there is very little scope of judicial intervention.
16. The notification dated 27/03/15 was issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-banking Regulation, Central Office, Mumbai, which provided that a non-banking financial company holding a certificate of registration issued by reserve bank of India and having net owned fund of less than 200 lakh of rupees, may continue to carry on business of non-banking financial institution, if such company achieved net owned fund of:-
(i) 100 lakh of rupees before 01/04/16 (ii) 200 lakh of rupees before 01/04/17.
17. The petitioner's have candidly admitted that he has not fulfilled the NOF requirement before the cut-off dates as prescribed in the aforesaid notification, and in terms of provisions contained in Section 45-IA (6) of the 1934 Act has cancelled the registration on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions issued by the bank.
18. The impugned order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has been mainly assailed on the ground that he was not provided with an opportunity of personal hearing before passing of the impugned order and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside score alone. The notification dated 27/03/15 itself provided that the petitioner was to achieve the NOF of 100 lakh of rupees before 01/04/16 and 200 lakh of Rupees before 01/04/17 which was admittedly not achieved by him. The petitioner submitted a reply in response to the show cause notice on 20/06/18. The reply submitted by the Company was duly considered by the Reserve Bank of India and the same is not found to be satisfactory and, therefore, by means of the order dated 30/10/18, the certificate of registration dated 21/09/07 was cancelled after recording a finding that the company is not eligible to continue to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution on account of its failure to comply with the directions of the reserve bank as regard achievement of specified NOF, and it was further recorded that the bank is satisfied that no public interest will be served in allowing the company to continue to undertake the business of the non-banking financial institution.
19. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order to the Central Government assailing the order of cancellation of registration on the ground that the same having been passed in violation of principles of natural Justice, that it vague in as much as it did not specify the provisions which had not been complied by the petitioner, and also that the petitioner had a concrete plan for raising its NOF.
20. The Central Government by means of the impugned order dated 20/10/18 has rejected the appeal after considering the grounds stated by the petitioner in the appeal. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing to present his case. The appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner relied upon the notification dated 27/03/15, and held that the petitioner had failed to achieve the prescribed ceiling within the stipulated time period and, therefore, he is not eligible to hold the certificate of registration as NBFC.
21. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the registration, it was held that the petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity of being heard before cancellation of the registration and that by means of notification dated 27/03/15, he was advised to submit plans for increasing the NOF to the prescribed level, but the NOF was only 88.89 lakhs as on 31/03/15 and ample opportunity was provided to him to raise the NOF and the ground taken by the petitioner with regard to the inconsistent policy on the autos as well as other hardship would not be a reason for not following the statutory requirement of doing business. It was also held that the reasonable opportunity of being heard does not necessarily mean an opportunity of personal hearing.
22. It is clear that a show was notice was issued to the petitioner before cancellation of the registration and it was indicated in the show cause notice that the petitioner has not achieved the NOF within the stipulated period prescribed in the notification of 2015. The reply submitted by the petitioner was duly considered. It cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
23. To consider the contention of the petitioner that it was mandatory to provide opportunity of personal hearing, it would be necessary to consider the pronouncements of the Apex Court in this regard.
24. In Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others : (2007) 4 SCC 54, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed:-
"In P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 776], this Court observed :
"The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change."
It was further observed :
"Decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors. [(1980) 4 SCC 379], whereupon Mr. Rao placed strong reliance to contend that non- observance of principle of natural justice itself causes prejudice or the same should not be read "as it causes difficulty of prejudice", cannot be said to be applicable in the instant case. The principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. In view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364] and Rajendra Singh vs. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460], the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principal doctrine of audi alterem partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principal. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula. [See Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J. & K. Bank Ltd. & Ots. (2005) 5 SCC 337 and State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors. JT 2006 (1) SC 19. See also Mohd. Sartaj vs. State of U.P. (2006) 1 SCALE 265.]"
25. In the case of Arcot Textile Mills Ltd vs Reg. Provident Fund Commissioner : (2013) 16 SCC 1, it was observed by the Apex Court :-
"25. We may state with profit that principles of natural justice should neither be treated with absolute rigidity nor should they be imprisoned in a straight-jacket. It has been held in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Others[14] that the maxim audi alteram partem cannot be invoked if the import of such maxim would have the effect of paralyzing the administrative process or where the need for promptitude or the urgency so demands. It has been stated therein that the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential. The concept of natural justice sometimes requires flexibility in the application of the rule. What is required to be seen the ultimate weighing on the balance of fairness. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the circumstances of the case.
26. In Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement and Another[15], this Court while discussing about the applicability of the rule had reproduced the following passage:-
"It is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply: nor as to their scope and extent. Everything depends on the subject-matter:" [see R. v. Gaming Board for Great Britain, ex p Benaim and Khaida[16] at QB p. 430 C], observed Lord Denning, M.R. ... Their application, resting as it does upon statutory implication, must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and with the subject-matter of the case."
27. In this context, we may fruitfully refer to the verdict in Kesar Enterprises Limited v. State of Uttar Praesh and Others[17] wherein the Court was considering the applicability of principles of natural justice to Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual. The said Rule provided that if certificate was not received within the time mentioned in the bond or pass, or if the condition of bond was infringed, the Collector of the exporting district or the Excise Inspector who granted the pass shall take necessary steps to recover from executant or his surety the penalty due under the bond. A two- Judge Bench referred to the decisions in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India[18], Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy[19] and Sahara India (Firm) v. CIT[20] and came to hold as follows:-
"30. ... we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being heard."
28. Regard being had to the discussions made and the law stated in the field, we are of the considered opinion that natural justice has many facets. Sometimes, the said doctrine applied in a broad way, sometimes in a limited or narrow manner. Therefore, there has to be a limited enquiry only to the realm of computation which is statutorily provided regard being had to the range of delay. Beyond that nothing is permissible. We are disposed to think so, for when an independent order is passed making a demand, the employer cannot be totally remediless and would have no right even to file an objection pertaining to computation. Hence, we hold that an objection can be filed challenging the computation in a limited spectrum which shall be dealt with in a summary manner by the Competent Authority."
26. Applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to principles of natural Justice, it is clear that Section 45-IA(6)(v) 1934 Act provides for cancellation of certificate of registration after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
27. In the facts of the present case, it has been admitted that the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of the end NOF before the cut-off date of April 1 2017. This is not a case where if opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner they could have pleaded before the authority about the reasons for non-compliance of the notification of 2015, and in our considered opinion in the present set of circumstances, no useful purpose would have been served in providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, taking into account the fact that he has already admitted that he did not comply with the notification of 2015. The business of the petitioner is subject to obtaining a licence from the reserve bank of India after fulfilling certain conditions prescribed by the Bank from time to time. The petitioner is under a duty to comply with the directions of the reserve bank as provided in section 45IA of 1934 Act, and the statute itself mandates that in case the direction are not complied then the registration is liable to be cancelled, and that there is no escape from the statutory provisions. It is further needless to say that the petitioner does not have a right to carry on the business of non-banking finance company without complying with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. We further take into account the fact that it has not been argued or submitted by the petitioner that they suffered any prejudice on being denied opportunity of personal hearing, and therefore sufficient opportunity of hearing was provided to them by putting them under notice and considering the reply before proceeding to cancel their registration.
28. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 7 SCC 561 held that in the matter of policy decision and economic tests, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution, the Court would not interfere with an economic decision taken by the State. The Court cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down the same merely on the ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. It was further held that it is neither within the domain of the Courts, nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved, nor are the Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the Courts.
29. After considering the facts of the case as well as the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice was complied by the Bank by giving a show cause notice and considering the reply of petitioner before cancelling the registration. The impugned order cannot be set-aside on the ground of the same having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Apart from this, the petitioner has failed to indicates as to how he was prejudicial in not being afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. We do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner in this regard.
30. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the appellate order dated 26/08/19 and the order of cancellation of registration dated 30/10/18.
31. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Alok Mathur, J.) (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.) Order Date :- 16.12.2019 Ajit/-