Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Society For Welfare Of The Handicapped ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 July, 2019
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
July 25, 2019
ARDR
WP 8452 (W) of 2015
Society for Welfare of the Handicapped Persons & anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Amit Kumar Pan,
...for the petitioners.
Mr. Debtanay Banerjee,
...for the respondent nos. 11, 12 & 13.
Mr. Tulsidas Roy, ...for the State.
Learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners Mr. Pradip Kumar Dutta has pointed out a part of paragraph 4c of the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Sudeep Kumar Ghosh on behalf of the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 on 21st June, 2019 where the following averment has been made.
"4c. ...........
Even the initial funding of the account maintained with Respondent nO.13 Branch was made by a cheque belonging to the existing Corporation Bank account of the petitioner no.1. The Respondent No.13 Branch as pe their due diligence procedure had sought confirmation from Corporation Bank and had also verified the KYC documents of the petitioners from the records as available from the Corporation Bank. Now it is clear from this aspect that it was the petitioner no.2 and the Secretary of petitioner No.1 organization had themselves opted to open the said account with the Respondent No.13 branch and the Respondent No. 13 after due compliance of the standard procedure for on-boarding a customer had opened the account of the petitioner no.1 organization."
In terms of my earlier order Mr. Dutta's client has affirmed an affidavit disclosing the details. Such affidavit has been affirmed on July 23, 2019 is taken on record.
I have found nothing in the said affidavit filed by the petitioners in support the case of the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13. No record has been produced by the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 in support of the allegations contained in paragraph 4c of their opposition as 2 aforesaid. I am impelled to draw adverse inference against the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13. This is a matter which has grave consequence on the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 particularly the respondent no.11 Bank.
I adjourn the matter till August 5, 2019 at 12.30 O'clock in the afternoon for the respondent no. 11 to come back and respond why I shall not direct the Reserve Bank of India, a party respondent herein to consider the question of cancellation of the license of the said respondent no. 11 apart from taking other penal measures as against the said respondent no.11.
Mr. Debtanay Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 submits that he has been instructed that the writ petitioner no.1 is no longer competent to maintain the writ petition. He says this is because its registration was cancelled way back in 2015 for violation, as appears from a document he has downloaded from the Internet whose copy is produced before me. The same is taken on record. A copy has also been given to Mr. Dutta who shall take instructions on the same and come back on the date fixed as above.
Needless to mention out of the two writ petitioners cancellation of the registration of the petitioner no.1 does not affect the maintainability of the petition if continued by the petitioner no.2 as a 3 President of the Society in view of Section 19 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961.
I record that the respondents have not objected to the trite which the petitioner no.1 has been arrayed.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.)