Calcutta High Court
Rossell India Ltd)& Anr vs Banking Ombudsman For West Bengal on 31 January, 2014
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
WP No.1283 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
AROTECH SERVICES (DIVISION OF
ROSSELL INDIA LTD)& ANR.
-Versus-
BANKING OMBUDSMAN FOR WEST BENGAL
AND SIKKIM & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Manab Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Moumita Gupta, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. A. Sarkar, Adv.
...for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Somdutt Bose, Adv. ...for the respondent Nos.4 & 5.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA Date : 31st January, 2014.
The Court : The petitioners complain of the inaction of the banking ombudsman to give his decision on the complaints lodged by them, being Annexures-P/2 and P/4 to the writ petition.
Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate representing the banking ombudsman submits that the petitioners' complaints have been disposed of by him. An order said to have been passed by the banking ombudsman is produced before the Court. 2
Having perused the order, I am of the clear view that the approach of the banking ombudsman in deciding the complaint lodged by the petitioners is absolutely improper.
The Banking Ombudsman Scheme has been framed by the Reserve Bank of India with a view to ensure disposal of grievances that the customers of the banks might have against the latter. While giving decision on the complaint of a customer against the bank, the banking ombudsman discharges functions in a quasi- judicial capacity.
It is settled law that while deciding a lis in discharge of quasi-judicial functions, the authority concerned is required to consider the grievance of the aggrieved and the defence there- against, appreciate the evidence that is produced by the parties, give opportunity of hearing to the party to be affected by its order and to support its ultimate order with reasons, thereby showing application of mind.
However, the manner in which the complaint of the petitioner was disposed of leaves a lot to be desired. It is impermissible for a quasi-judicial authority to have someone else express his view on the claims and counter-claims and to pass an order based on such view. The decision that has to be given on the complaint must be that of the authority concerned, without being influenced by any view of a third party. The complaint has been disposed of by taking recourse to a procedure that is unheard 3 of. Being absolutely improper, I have no hesitation to set aside the order. It is ordered accordingly.
The complaint of the petitioners shall now be considered afresh by the banking ombudsman in accordance with law and a reasoned order shall be given on such complaint after hearing the parties, if the Scheme does not expressly or by necessary implication excludes hearing, as early as possible but not later than a month from date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent mentioned above, without costs.
Certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Dipankar Datta, J.) A/s.