Delhi High Court - Orders
Mr Radha Krishna Pandey vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 15 February, 2022
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~52 (2022 Cause List)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7765/2020 & CM APPL. 25584/2020 (stay)
MR RADHA KRISHNA PANDEY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R.,
Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Nisha
Sharma and Ms. Sanya Panjwani,
Advocate for R-1/RBI.
Mr. Vivek Jain, Ms. Akanksha
Singh, and Ms. Aastha Tiwari,
Advocates for R-2 and 4.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout,
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty and
Ms. Nandita Jha, Advocates for the
R-3/Canara Bank.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.02.2022 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
1. The reliefs sought in the present petition are as follows: -
"A. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order declaring as unreasonable and illegal, the declaration of Petitioner‟s name „Fraud‟ in Central fraud Registry, by Respondent No. 2 and 3.
B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 11:58:42 W.P.(C) 7765/2020 Page 1 of 3 writ/direction/order, directing Respondents No. 2 and 3 to remove the name of the Petitioner from the records of Central Fraud Registry;
C. Direct respondent No.4 to ensure that no blacklisting or any other adverse action would be taken by any member of the Consortium of banks against the Petitioner till decision of the present writ petition;
D. Direct Respondents to not take any adverse or coercive action against the Petitioner till the decision of this present writ petition;
E. Quash and set aside the impugned Master Directions issued by Respondent No. 1 bearing Reference No. RBI/DBS/2016- 17/28DBS.CO.CFMC.BC.No.1/23.04.001/2016-17, as updated on 03.07.2017, to the extent it violates the principles of Natural Justice and Fundamental Rights of people/citizens.
F. Pass any such other/further writ of any nature, direction, order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The petition was being heard alongwith a batch of writ petitions [W.P.(C) 306/2019: Apple Sponge and Power Ltd and Ors. vs. Reserve Bank of India and Anr., and connected matters] which raise a challenge to the Master Directions on Frauds ["Master Directions"] issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2016.
3. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner does not wish to press prayer (E) of the writ petition, which relates to the vires of the Master Directions, and seeks adjudication of the writ petition with regard to the classification of the petitioner's account as fraud on the ground that it is in violation of the Master Directions. He, therefore, submits that the present petition be heard separately.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 11:58:42 W.P.(C) 7765/2020 Page 2 of 34. In view of Mr. Prakash's submission as aforesaid, prayer (E) of the writ petition is rejected as not pressed. As the remaining prayers do not concern the validity of the Master Directions, the matter will now have to be agitated on facts.
5. Ms. Akanksha Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2- Bank of Baroda and 4- Punjab National Bank, and Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Canara Bank, seek some time to file their replies to the writ petition. Replies may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinders thereto, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
6. The matter is not to be treated as part-heard.
7. List before the Roster Bench on 13.04.2022.
8. Interim orders to continue.
PRATEEK JALAN, J FEBRUARY 15, 2022 „Bp‟ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:17.02.2022 11:58:42 W.P.(C) 7765/2020 Page 3 of 3