Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Somnath Guin & Ors vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 1 July, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas
W.P.No.9834(W) of 2011
Somnath Guin & Ors.
-vs-
Punjab National Bank & Ors.
Mr. S.N. Mukherjee
Mr. D.K. Saha Roy
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharjee ....for the petitioners
Mr. Sk. Siddique Rahaman ....for the respondents
Heard on : July 1, 2011 Judgment on : July 1, 2011 The Court : The four petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 21, 2011 are questioning twelve notices (at pp.50-61) all dated June 2, 2011 issued by Punjab National Bank. The notices have been issued regarding identification of default on the loan transactions of the addressees thereof with the bank as "willful".
Mr Mukherjee appearing for the petitioners has argued as follows. There cannot be any dispute that the notices could be issued, if at all, only according to the provisions of the master circular on willful defaulters dated July 1, 2010 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In view of the provisions of paras. 2.1, 2.2 and 3 of the circular the notices issued without disclosing the requisite reasons, a requirement of para.3(ii) of the circular, and stating how the directors whose names were mentioned in the notices were responsible for the default, if any, cannot be maintained.
The petitioners did not submit any representation to the authority issuing the notices making grievance that reasons were not disclosed in terms of the provisions of para.3(ii) of the circular.
In my opinion, since the petitioners are of the view that reasons stated in the notices are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement of para. 3(ii) of the circular, before approaching the Writ Court they ought to have called upon the authority issuing the notices to comply with the provision of the para. Whether the directors whose names have been mentioned in the notices can be involved in the matter is a pure question of fact and since it is the case of the petitioners that they could not be involved, in my opinion, they ought to have submitted representations. I think purpose of justice will be served by giving suitable directions.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows.
The petitioners will be free to request the authority issuing the notices to disclose the reasons they want the authority to disclose in terms of the provisions of para.3(ii) of the circular. If such representations are made within a fortnight, then within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the representations the authority shall suitably respond in writing.
The petitioners will be free to submit representations contending that the directors whose names have been mentioned in the notices could not be involved in the matter in terms of the provisions of the circular. If representations are made, the authorities shall deal with them in terms of the provisions of the circular, especially the ones in para.3 thereof.
No costs. Certified xerox.
(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb