Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharmendra Pal vs Chairman on 10 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 974 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
DHARMENDRA PAL S/O SHRI HANSRAJ PAL
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 417, A-3, MILAN HEIGHT
BICHOLI MARDANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(SHRI RISHIRAJ TRIVEDI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT)
AND
1. CHAIRMAN STATE BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL
OFFICE AT MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF
INDIA RBO-1, 5, Y.N. ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, SME
BRANCH 31, CHANDRASHEKHAR VYAS ROAD,
POLOGROUND (INDUSTRIAL ESTATE) INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. M/S LAKRAS BUILDERS 469/25, NANDA NAGAR,
INDORE THROUGH PROPRIETOR VISHWAS
LAKRAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 11-05-2024
16:15:48
2
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The present writ appeal u/S 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. No. 22113/2021 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To allow the present writ petition:
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondent no.1 to 3 to allow the request of revocation made by the petitioner by way of Annexure P-4 and further consequently release the property of the petitioner.
(iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by respondent no. 4 - M/S Lakras Builders to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores in the year 2011 by placing three properties with the bank as collateral security. For some reasons, the appellant wanted to relieve himself from the aforesaid guarantee and thus, made a representation to the respondent/bank initially in the year 2017. However, he did not receive any response, therefore various reminders for revocation of guarantee were sent to the bank, but till date there is no response from the respondent/bank. The appellant also applied through RTI to obtain his documents, but he was denied the documents. Therefore, he preferred a second appeal before the appellate authority which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant had filed a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11-05-2024 16:15:48 3 writ petition seeking revocation of the guarantee which was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence the present writ appeal has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that despite writing many letters to the bank, no decision was taken by the bank whereas the properties of the wife of respondent no. 4 who was the borrower have been released, which has caused great prejudice to the appellant despite the fact that the loan agreement contains revocation of guarantee on a notice to be served by the bank. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that atleast, the bank ought to have decided the representations. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable and the remedy lies before the Civil Court which is absolutely misplaced. Remedy would lie before the Civil Court only after a decision is taken by the bank either to revoke or to continue with the guarantee. In such a situation, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
5. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is seen that liberty has been granted to the appellant to take recourse to such legal remedy available to him under the law for claiming compensation through Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. Admittedly, the State Bank of India being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent/bank has not taken any decision on the representation filed by the appellant since 2017, therefore a writ of mandamus ought to have been issued directing the respondent/bank to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on a wrong Signature Not Verified Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN Signing time: 11-05-2024 16:15:48 4 premise by holding that the appellant is entitled to legal remedy through Civil Court.
8. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 28.02.2024 passed in W.P. no. 22113/2021 by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The respondent no.1 to 3 are directed to decide the representation (Annexure A-1), if not already decided, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified coy of the order passed today and pass a reasoned and speaking order.
9. With the aforesaid directions, appeal stands disposed off.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 11-05-2024
16:15:48