Kerala High Court
Tomy K.Thomas vs State Bank Of India Represented By Its ... on 22 September, 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY,THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32688 of 2016 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
TOMY K.THOMAS
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O THOMAS,
LOTTANAD HOUSE,
MUTHOLAPURAM P.O-686665
(GENERAL CONVENER, ACTION COUNCIL, MUTHOLAPURAM)
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN &
MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.
4. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL
HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM 31.
5. THE BRANCH MANGAER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
MUTHOLAPURAM BRANCH, MUTHOLAPURAM 686665.
6. THE DIRECTOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 TO R5 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL
SMT.S.AMBILY
R6 BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 32688 of 2016 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED 22.9.1999
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA
DATED 22.5.2010
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2010.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA
DATED 20.06.2010.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY SRI.SABU
PALLICKAPARAMBIL MATHEW.
EXHIBITS P6. TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 1.7.2016 ISSUED BY
SRI.PRADEEP PURUSHOTHAOMAN.
EXHIBITS P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.7.2016.
EXHIBITS P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.06.2016.
EXHIBITS P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN JENMABHOOMI DAILY
DATED 3.7.2016
EXHIBITS P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.7.2016 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.23080/2016
EXHIBITS P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2016 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBITS P12: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 4TH OCTOBER 2016
(ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED AS 4TH SEPTEMBER 2016 IN THE
APPEAL) (EXCLUDING ANNEXURE)
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
---------------------------------------
// True Copy //
P.A to Judge
rmm
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016
--------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
-------------------
Petitioner is a resident of Mutholapuram. According to the petitioner, the dream of the rural people of Mutholapuram was fulfilled, when a branch of Bank of Cochin was started at Mutholapuram under the Rural Development Scheme in the year 1977. When Bank of Cochin was amalgamated to State Bank of India in the year 1985, branch of State Bank of India started functioning at Mutholapuram. Since, no other banks are operating in this rural area, the operation of State Bank of India at Mutholapuram is a great relief to the residents. However, to safeguard the interest of the employees of the bank, the respondents propose to shift the Mutholapuram branch of the Bank to Elanji town, 5 KM away from Mutholapuram. Thereupon, petitioner has approached this court and secured Ext.P10 judgment W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016 2 whereby, respondents were directed to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, respondents have considered and passed Ext.P11 order, reiterating its stand to shift the branch from Mutholapuram to Elanji. Being aggrieved by Ext.P11, petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 before the Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent Bank, which is pending consideration. It is in this background, seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a related direction to consider Ex.P12, this writ petition is filed.
2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the parties.
3. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is required in Ext.P11 order. Needless to say, when an authority passes an order by providing necessary opportunity to the parties to participate in a proceeding and if the Court is satisfied W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016 3 that in absolute compliance of natural justice the said order is passed, interference by this Court under Article 226 will be very slow. On an evaluation of Ext.P11 order what is discernible is that, the representation was considered as directed in Ext.P10 judgment by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 order will be worthwhile to be quoted which itself will be sufficient to decide the issue.
'' 3. On perusal of the relevant records, it is seen that the decision to shift the Branch from Mutholapuram was taken mainly for the following reasons:
i) Mutholapuram branch is presently housed in a tile roofed building which is more than 55 years old, taken on lease in 1977.
ii) Even though the total area of the existing building is 1799 Sq.ft around 600 sq.ft is on the first floor of the building and is in an unusable state. The banking hall is very congested and limited space is available for customers.
iii)There is no proper strong room at the branch for safe keeping of cash and valuables.
iv) Regular up keep and maintenance of the building is not being properly carried out by the land lord, in spite of repeated requests.
v) The lack of basic amenities is causing severe discomfort to customers.
vi) Bank's security officer has also pointed out security threat due to exposed old wiring, high voltage fluctuations etc. in addition to structural weakness of the building.W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016 4
4. Accordingly, Bank published advertisements in the newspapers for selection of another suitable premises. Six applications were received in response to the advertisement, out of which the site at Elanji was found suitable. The site measuring about 1800 sq.ft in the ground floor offers the benefit of housing the branch on a single floor providing operational convenience and optimum utilisation of space and the landlord was ready to construct the building as per Bank's specifications. Hence, it was decided to shift the Branch to Elanji.
5. It is also relevant to note that on the basis of the agreement entered in to between the Bank and the land lord of the new site at Elanji for construction of the new building, he has completed the construction of the Building investing huge amounts. Bank has also spent large amount towards interiors, electrical installations, air- conditioners, security equipment, data cabling, installation of Generator set etc. The new premise is now ready for occupation. Therefore, the bank has no other option but to shift the branch to Elanji. Otherwise, Bank will be put to heavy loss and irreparable hardship.
6. In the above back drop, I have considered the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation. It is to be noted that the proposed premises at Elanji is located only about 2 Kms from the present branch and is a commercial centre. Both Mutolapuram and Elanji come under the same Panchayat and Village Office. The Bank has taken the decision after considering the business potential at Elanji. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that it is too risky to continue all the banks in small city like Elanji is misconceived. To take care of the banking requirements of the residents and various institutions in Mutholapuram. Bank may consider providing the facility of Customer Service Points (CSPs) to cater to the needs of the customers, so that the customers would not face difficulty in carrying out their banking transactions. The contention that after merger of SBI, there will remain only one Bank in Elanji, is misconceived and incorrect. The merger is yet to take place. Moreover, even according to the petitioner there are branches of other Banks and financial institutions going on in good condition in Elanji." W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016 5
4. On a consideration of Ext.P11 order, it is clear that all the aspects put forth by the petitioner were considered by the Bank and the decision was rendered taking note of the convenience of the Bank and the public and safety and security measures. Therefore, I do not think that petitioner has made out a case of illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities enabling this Court to exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, at this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if a direction is issued directing the respondents to provide an extension counter at Mutholapuram, petitioner will be satisfied.
5. Taking note of the said submission, I direct the Chief General Manager and Managing Director of the 1st respondent Bank to consider Ext.P12 and ascertain whether any extension counter can be provided as requested by the petitioner. However, learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, if a direction is so issued to the W.P.(C)No.32688 of 2016 6 Chief General Manager, Ext.P12 representation submitted by the petitioner can be transmitted to Local Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
6. Accordingly, there will be a direction to transmit Ext.P12 to the Chief General Manager LHO, Thiruvananthapuram, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and the question with respect to the extension counter, as sought for by petitioner, shall be considered and a decision shall be taken within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear, the proceedings initiated by the Bank with respect to shifting of the Bank to Elanji can be proceeded with.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
// True copy // P.A. To Judge rmm/14.10.2016