Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sbi Cards And Payments Services Private ... vs Chairman, on 22 April, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010180452019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3526]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No: 7773/2019
Between:
SBI Cards And Payments Services Private Limited, ...PETITIONER
AND
Chairman and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. N. ASHWANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. KADASANI SUDERSHAN REDDY
2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr. N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The writ petitioner is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order dated
03.04.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat at Kadapa in PLAC No.349 of 2018 titled as "Shaik Abdul Shaheed Vs. The Nodal Officer and Anr", as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and highly irrational and violative of Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India and violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent for fresh disposal of the case and pass such other orders or order......"
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner issued a credit card bearing No.0004726427580386787 with a credit limit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 herein upon submission of an application along with KYC documents duly signed by him. A dispute arose with regard to the usage of the said credit card, more particularly, with reference to a transaction dated 04.01.2018. After due enquiry, it was found that the disputed transaction was performed in 3-D secure environment and the same was validated by the respondent No.2 by way of CVV and an 3 OTP, which was exclusively known only to the respondent No.2. The outcome of the investigation was communicated to respondent No.2.
4. The respondent No.2 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services at Kadapa by filing a petition, vide PLAC No.349 of 2018, impleading Nodal Officer, Customer Correspondence Unit, as respondent No.1 and the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Bazaar Branch, Kadapa, as respondent No.2. The Permanent Lok Adalat, after considering the matter, passed an award dated 03.04.2019, the releant portion of which reads as follows:
"In conclusion of the observations in the earlier para it is held that the petitioner duly proved that there is deficiency in the service on the part of the respondents, while passing on the data about the petitioner from the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent for issuing the credit card without his application and while the 2nd respondent charging the statement for un-authorised withdrawal of Rs.1,00,000/- on
04.01.2018 and thus they are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- each as compensation to the petitioner for his loss and mental agony.
In the result, the petition shall be allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and that the respondents 1 to 2 shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- each to the petitioner by depositing the same within one month from the date of this award i.e., 03.04.2019 before the District Judge 4 Court, Kadapa to the credit of this award communicated u/s- 22(E) of APLSA Act for purpose of execution and that on such deposit the petitioner shall be permitted to withdraw the said Rs.2,00,000/- payable to him."
5. Challenging the orders dated 03.04.2019 passed by the learned Permanent Lok Adalat, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the respondent No.2 by resorting to acts of mis- representation and fraud, secured the order impugned in the Writ Petition. Referring to the communication dated 31.10.2018, addressed to the respondent No.2 by the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Kadapa Branch, and the legal notice dated 19.02.2018, got issued by the respondent No.2 to the General Manager, State Bank of India, as also Head Office of the State Bank of India Card Division, he would contend that though the respondent No.2 is aware that the State Bank of India Card Section is the concerned party, without impleading the same, the respondent No.2 approached the Permanent Lok Adalat and secured the impugned order by playing fraud. Placing reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Yalamarthi Narasimha Rao Vs. The District Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalath) at 5 Vijayawada and Ors.1, learned counsel sought to impress upon this Court that as injustice was meted out at the behest of the respondent No.2, who obtained orders from the Permanent Lok Adalat by resorting to misrepresentation, the Writ Petition is maintainable and the petitioner may not be relegated to avail the other legal remedies against the order impugned in the Writ Petition.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
8. At the outset, it may be noted that, as observed by the learned Division Bench in the decision cited supra, in extraordinary cases, where the Court, prima facie, comes to a conclusion, by looking into the material placed on record, that fraud or mis-representation has been played and resorted to by the parties, a Writ Petition may be entertained. But, in the present case, as seen from the pleadings, no such allegation is made that the Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat impugned in the present Writ Petition was obtained by playing fraud or by mis-representation. In the absence of such pleading, this Court is of the considered view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Further, several disputed 1 2022(1) ALT 553 6 questions of fact are involved and the same cannot be examined in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not as if the Writ Petition is the only remedy available to the petitioner, more particularly, when it is the case of the petitioner that fraud or mis- representation has been played by the respondent No.2. As the matter involves disputed questions of fact, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Civil Court and seek a declaration that the Award of Permanent Lok Adalat has been obtained by playing fraud.
9. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner adopts such course of action, laying challenge to the Award of the Lok Adalat, before appropriate forum, the same shall be examined on merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.04.2025 siva 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.7773 OF 2019 Date: 22.04.2025 siva