Delhi High Court
Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 17 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 17th March, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 10920/2021 & CM APPL. 33663/2021
JAMIA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Tarique Siddiqui, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Special Counsel
(Civil), GNCTD.
Mr. Shahzad Hussain, Adv. for R-5.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (ORAL)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited challenging the
impugned order dated 14th September, 2021 passed by the Assistant Registrar
(Banking), office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies (hereinafter "RCS"),
directing the concerned officer to re-conduct the inspection of the records of
the Petitioner Bank under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act,
2003 (hereinafter "DCS Act").
3. This matter has a long history. The Petitioner is a co-operative bank
which was established on 31st July, 1995. One Mr. Syed Mohd. Imran, an
estranged employee of the Petitioner Bank, made a complaint dated 27th
September, 2011, in respect of which comments were sought by the Reserve
Bank of India as also the Assistant Registrar (Banking), RCS. In response, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 1 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
Petitioner Bank on 30th November, 2011 had submitted its detailed comments
to the said complaint. The stand of the Petitioner Bank was that the said
complainant was the erstwhile CEO of the Petitioner Bank, whose tenure was
not extended by the Petitioner Bank beyond the stipulated period. The
Complainant being aggrieved by the said decision of the Petitioner Bank had
filed the complaint. The Petitioner Bank also refuted the allegations of the
Complainant.
4. On 9th November, 2012, the Special RCS, New Delhi issued an order
appointing an Inquiry Officer i.e., Mr. P.C. Jain to conduct an enquiry on the
basis of the issues raised in the complaint of Sh. S. M. Imran. The said Inquiry
Officer submitted his report on 21st December, 2012. This report was
challenged by the Petitioner bank in W.P.(C)7006/2013. Grave doubts were
raised as to whether the complaint itself was properly filed as the complainant
- Sh. S. M. Imran was no longer the CEO of the Petitioner bank and he was
neither a creditor, a member or even a public servant in respect of the
Petitioner Bank, as required for making a complaint under Section 61 of the
DCS Act. In the writ petition filed by the Petitioner Bank, order dated 8th
November, 2013 was passed, which reads as under:-
"5. The petitioner has complained that the respondents
have violated the provisions of Section 61 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 and have proceeded to
appoint an inquiry officer even though no complaint was
made in accordance with law by bona fide members or
a public servant with regard to affairs of the petitioner's
society. It is further submitted that no hearing was given
to the petitioner before making such appointment. The
petitioner's review was kept pending for almost two
years and thereafter its rejection intimation was given
to the petitioner only on the 19th of October, 2013. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 2 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
petitioner complains that the respondents have
thereafter passed the order dated. 25th October, 2013
purporting to be in compliance with the requirements of
Section 66 of the said enactment basing the order on an
alleged report dated 21st December, 2D 12 submitted
by the inquiry officer. It is contended that the material
based whereon the order has been passed has not been
supplied; no opportunity has been given to the petitioner
to make submissions and that the order is wholly in
violation of the requirement of law and justice.
6. The petitioner makes a further grievance that
respondent no.6 who has been appointed as the inquiry
officer to conduct the inquiry under Section 66 (1) of the
Act is acting wholly unreasonable in the matter. In this
regard our attention is drawn to the notice dated 5th
November, 2013 issued by the respondent no.6
requiring the petitioner to produce the entire record on
8th of November, 2013.
7. Given the contention of the petitioner of the violation
of statutory provisions and the facts noted above, it
would be ·in the interest of justice if the respondents are
directed to stay their hands till the next date of hearing.
8. In view of the above, there shall be stay of the effect
and operation of the order dated 9th November, 2012,
9th October, 2013 and 25th October, 2013 till the next
date of hearing."
5. The Court, as can be seen from the above order, has stayed the
operation of the orders that were under challenge in the said petition. The
grievance of the Petitioner Bank as is captured in the above order is that the
concerned Inquiry Officer was appointed without giving notice to the
Petitioner Bank and the review application was kept pending wherein finally
the order was passed on 25th October, 2013.
6. The said writ petition i.e., W.P.(C)7006/2013, remained pending and
during that period, the present Complainant i.e., Respondent No. 5 - Sh. Syed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 3 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
Mohd. Noorullah adopted the complaint of Sh. S. M. Imran on 23rd April,
2014. In this regard, the Court dealing with W.P.(C) 7006/2013 was informed
of the same and vide orders dated 19th January, 2016 & 27th July, 2016 it was
observed as under:-
Order dated 19th January, 2016
"Respondent shall bring the relevant official record of
the Jamia Coop. Bank Ltd. available.
The issue is whether the complainant, Syed Mohd.
Noorulah (at whose best the inspection under Section
61 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Act was ordered)
was a shareholder/member of the petitioner bank.
There is no dispute that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.
7264/2014 is a member; however, he did not approach
the Registrar for appropriate action under Section 61 of
the Delhi Cooperative Society Act.
List on 26.02.2016.
Order dated 27th July, 2016
The petitioners submit that the order dated 09.11.2012
appointing Mr. P.C. Jain, Special Secretary (GAD) as
an Inquiry Officer under Section 61 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 ("Act") is invalid and
non est as the said order refers to a complaint by Syed
Mohd. Imran. As per the proviso to Section 61 of the Act,
the Registrar can order an inquiry when a complaint is
made by a member or a public servant, and not by an ex
employee. Syed Mohd. Imran was neither a member nor
a public servant.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Registrar of
Cooperative Societies would justify the said order as
valid under Section 138 of the Act. Section 138 refers to
orders or directions which can be issued by the
Registrar in general or in a particular matter for
enforcement of directions of the Reserve Bank to protect
the interest of members and depositors. The Registrar of
Cooperative Societies had received letter dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 4 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
24.08.2012 from the Reserve Bank of India, forwarding
the complaint from Syed Mohd. Imran. The Reserve
Bank of India did not comment on the complaint or the
contents. Neither were any directions or orders issued.
The letter cannot be read and construed as a direction
given by the Reserve Bank of India.
In fact, the order dated 09.11.2012 was for conducting
an inquiry, i.e. a fact finding probe to ascertain and
know the correct position. It was to check and verify the
assertions and allegations in the complaint.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Registrar
Cooperative Societies wants to take instructions, as one
Syed Mohd. Noorullah has filed a writ petition before
this Court and, distinguishably, is a member of the
cooperative society. He has asked for an investigation
to be conducted in terms of Section 61 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.
It may be advisable not to get embroiled and entangled
in technical objections, and in this process deviate and
forget the core issue, i.e. that the allegations are
serious and require investigation.
The directions given under Rule 80 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007 are not the subject
matter of the present petition
7. Upon the Division Bench observing that the allegations are serious and
require investigation, three events took place:
(i) The Show Cause Notice dated 13th October, 2016 was issued to the
Petitioner bank (hereinafter "SCN").
(ii) The Asst. Registrar (Banking), RCS vide order dated 17th October,
2016 appointed a special auditor M/s. G.S. Goel & Co. under Rule
80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (hereinafter
"DCS Rules").
(iii) Thereafter, a second Inquiry Officer - Sh. R.S. Krishnan was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 5 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
appointed vide order dated 20th April, 2017 by the Asst. Registrar
(Banking), RCS.
For ease of reference, the details of the relevant orders and the corresponding
reports are extracted hereunder in a tabular from:
S. Particulars Details of the corresponding report
No. of the
Orders
(i)
1. SCN dated The relevant extracts of order dated 20th April, 2017
passed by Assistant Registrar (Banking) is set out
13th October,
below:
2016
"Whereas, Show Cause Notice u/s 61 (1) of DCS Act
2003 was issued vide dated 13.10.2016 to afford
opportunities to the parties concerned. The case was
heard by Spl. RCS and concluded that in order to
establish the truth on the allegations levelled against
the Bank Inspection u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003will have
to be conducted. The Registrar Cooperative Socities
has approved to conduct Inspection u/s 61 of DCS Act
2003 on the complaint of Sh. Syed Mohd. Noorullah
(member) against Jamia Coop. Bank Ltd."
(ii)
2. Appointment The relevant extracts of the report dated 31st May, 2019
submitted by the Special Audtitor are set out below:
of Special
Auditor i.e., "i) As the complainant did not produce any
documentary evidence of running a Banking by the
M/s G S
then director Mr. M. F. H. Beg at his residence, it
Goyal and cannot be said that the director Mr. M. F. H. Beg was
running a parallel Banking at his residence.
Co. vide
ii) Jn view of the above facts, it can be said that the
order dated Bank never received any letter/directions from the
director Mr. MFH Beg issuing directions to officers
(along with one clerk Samreen Fatima} of the Bank.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 6 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
19th October, iii)In view of the above, it can be said that the
allegation that the architect of the Zakir Nagar Branch
2016
was the relative(sister-in-law) of the director Mr. M. Q.
H. Beg is not sustainable.
iv) In view the above, It can be said that the allegation
that the Shri Ahmed Sayeed, the then Vice-Chairman
and now Director of the Bank was actively involved in
the tendering process which were called from the
contractors for the interior work of the Zakir Nagar
Branch & copies of the tenders in this regard bear the
signature of Shri Sayeed is not sustainable.
v) As already replied in previous para, the complainant
did not produce any documentary evidence to sustain
the allegation. In view of the above, it can be said that
the allegation that the list of defaulters is prepared at
the office being run at the residence of Mr. Beg and
then directly sent to the lawyer is not correct.
vi) In view of the above, It can be said that the
defaulters list were not prepared at the, residence of
Mr. Beg (Director) but by the branches itself and the
loan accounts were transferred to BDDR only after
approval from the Board.
vii) In view of the above, it can be said that the
sanctioning a loan is always the wisdom of higher
authority to accept or reject the recommendations of
the lower authority and
sanctioning a loan proposal despite negative remarks
of the credit officer/ Branch Manager/ CEO, is correct
and it is also correct that loan documents are filled up
by the staff members to assist the borrowers.
viii) In view of the above; it can be said that the loan
was not unsecured, as wrongly alleged by the
complainant, but fully secured. The loan was
sanctioned by the Board after
following the due process, although, it is noted that the
disbursement was made without completing the
formalities of the sanction letter, on the basis of advise
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 7 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
given by Mr. Beg. However, it has also been noted that
the loan stand closed without any loss to the Bank.
ix) In view of the above, it is observed that No loans
are given to the relatives or friends of the director as
per RBI directions.
x) In view of the above, it cannot be said that Mr. Vinod
Kumar Jain, Mr. Parmod Kumar Jain, Mr. Pardeep.
Kumar Jain & Priyanka Jain are friends of Mr. M.Q.H.
Beg, another director (now Chairman) of the Bank,
which is also not prohibited by the RBI. But it is evident
from the record that the end use of the original loan
was never verified. The Bank has not properly assessed
the original requirement as well as the repayment
capacity of the borrowers. However, it is also noted
that the account is in order at present without any
default and the Bank has not suffered any loss on this
account.
xi) In view of the above, It can be said that Mr. Mirza
Ziauddin Beg is not a relative of any of the Directors
of the Bank as per circular issued by RBI. So far as
filling the loan application by the staff member, it has
already been concluded that it is a part of the Bank
service. It could not be verified that the same was filled
up at Mr. Beg's residence.
xii) The allegation that more than 50% appointments
were directly made by Mr. Beg is generalised in nature.
The specific references mentioned in the complaint are
dealt in detail at succeeding paras.
xiii) In view of the above, it can be said that Anam
Khan was taken to Pune by Mr. M.F.H. Beg as an
attendant in official capacity and all the expenses were
duly approved in the Board Meeting. However., it is not
correct that soon thereafter she or any other person
was given the appointment in the Bank by Mr. Beg..
xiv) In view of the above, it can be said that Mr. M.M.
Zaman, who retired as CEO of the Bank at the age of
65 years was re-appointed as Senior Officer on Special
Duty in the Bank is correct. The Board never defined
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 8 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
his duties as a second signatory for operating accounts
of the Bank in various other Banks, issuance of
cheques, drafts, placing of funds in call money. Mr.
Zaman did not exceed his authority by issuing the
transfer letter of Mr.Shahid Ali Khan & Mr.Sultan
Alam after informing to the chairman.
xv) In view of the above, it can be said that there is no
forgery in lease agreement with, Sagufta farheen. But
some discrepancies are observed, mentioned as under:
1. Mr.Aas mohd did not inform to the Bank that he had
sold the property to Sagufta farheen at the time of
executing lease agreement.
2. Mr.Aasmohd. was not a borrower of the Bank
against the said property when it was rented out to the
Bank but Sagufta Farheen became borrower when
leased out the property to the Bank.
xvi) In view of the above, It can be said that the loan
application was filled up by Samreen Fatima as an
executive support of the bank but It cannot be verified
that It was filled up at the residence of Mr. Beg."
xvii) In view of the above, It can be said that the
sanctioning of a Term loan to Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed of
Rs.3.50 lakh against his application for Rs. 3.00 lacs
is factually correct. Also, transferring Rs.90,360/- to
NPA account of Mr. Irfan Ali (TL 4639) is against the
RBI guidelines. Further, settlement of the balance
amount outstanding Rs.132306/- against Mehfooz
Ahmed from BDDR is correct and approved by Board.
xviii) This is an internal administrative decision taken
by the competent authority of the Bank in due course
and hence, such allegation is not sustainable."
(iii)
3. Appointment The relevant extract of the report dated 9th August,
2018 submitted by the second Inquiry Officer is set out
of second
below:
Inquiry
"I have gone through the complaint, reply of the bank,
Officer Sh.
the rejoinder and other documents filed by both the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 9 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
R.S. parties which are on record. The topics like granting
of loan, bad debts etc. are core banking matters topics
Krishnan
and the undersigned is not trained in the field of
vide order banking. However, from the observations above and to
the best of my knowledge and belief, some of the
dated 20th
allegations are vague and general in nature so they
April, 2017 don t stand on any strong footing. However, as regard
to the other allegations pertaining to closed loans (
except one) bad debts, internal staff matters, taking
premises on rent etc. the explanation of the bank prima
facie seems to be satisfactory."
8. In view of the events that took place subsequent to issuance of the SCN,
orders dated 19th October, 2016 and 30th January, 2017 came to be passed in
W.P.(C) 7006/2013. The same are extracted below:
Order dated 19th October, 2016
"Learned counsel appearing for the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies states that on the basis of the
complaint made by Syed Mohd. Noorullah, a show cause
notice under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 has been issued to the chairman of
the Cooperative Society. We clarify that the order
passed by the Court will not be construed as an order
expressing any binding opinion on merits. The authority
will independently an objectively apply their mind,
without being influenced by any observation of the
Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies states that proceedings under
Rule 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007
have also been initiated.
Relist on 12th December, 2016."
Order dated 30th January, 2017
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 10 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
writ petition is rendered infructuous in view of the show
cause notice under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Act, 2003 dated 13th October, 2016. It is stated
that the petitioner cooperative society has submitted a
reply to the said show cause notice and hearing has been
held and order is awaited.
In view of the aforesaid position, the present writ
petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of
without expressing any opinion. We clarify that this
order would not be construed as an affirmative or a
negative order so as to influence the proceedings
initiated pursuant to the show caused notice dated 13th
October, 2016. Rights of all parties are protected and
issues left open."
A conjoint reading of the above orders would show that though the locus of
the initial complainant was doubted, since the second complainant had
adopted the earlier complaint and a fresh SCN was issued, the proceedings in
the fresh SCN were to continue.
9. Further, as tabulated above, both the special audit report and the second
enquiry report found no irregularities in the activities of the Petitioner Bank.
The complainant Sh. S. M. Noorulla, however, again filed another complaint
on 1st October, 2019 seeking reconduct of the inspection on the ground that
there were contradictions between the first report and the second report
submitted by Sh. P.C. Jain and Sh. R.S. Krishnan, respectively. The
complainant, therefore, prayed as under:
"It is, therefore, prayed most humbly and respectfully
submitted that this august office shall order to re-inspect
the Inspection of affairs of Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd.
u/s 61 of the DCS Act, 2003. Moreover, impose penalty
on Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd., for involving in
forging the documents, influencing the Public Officer to
meet their ends and playing with the hard earned money
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 11 of 17
Signing Date:19.03.2025
21:44:17
of the members of Jamia Cooperative Bank Ltd."
10. On this complaint, which is the second complaint of Mr. S.M.
Noorullah, the impugned order had been passed on 14th September, 2021.
The said order which is impugned before this Court is relevant and is extracted
hereinbelow:-
Dated: 14/9/2021
ORDER
"Whereas, the Jamia Coop. Bank Ltd. 2/30, Sarai Jullena, New Delhi-110025 is registered with this office under the provision of DCS Act & Rules framed there under.
Whereas, an inspection was ordered u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003 vide order no. 931-932 dated 09.11.2012 to look into the complaint of Sh. Syed Mohd. Imran which was forwarded by the RBI vide letter dated 24.08.2012. Whereas, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.07.2016 issued in WP (C) 7006/2013 and WP (C) 7264/2014 advised not to get embroiled and entangled in technical objections and in this process deviate and forget the core issue i.e. that the allegations are serious against the Bank and require investigations. Whereas, Sh. Syed Mohd. Nurullah the petitioner in WP (C) 7264/2014 informed the Hon'ble High Court that he is the member of Jamia Coop. Bank Ltd. and asked for action to be taken against the Bank u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003.
Whereas, Show Cause Notice u/s 61 (1) of DCS Act 2003 was issued vide dated 13.10.2016 to afford opportunities to the parties concerned. The case was heard by Spl. RCS and concluded that in order to establish the truth on the allegations levelled against the Bank Inspection u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003 will have to be conducted. The Registrar Cooperative Societies has approved to conduct Inspection u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 12 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17 on the complaint of Sh. Syed Mohd. Nurullah, (member) against Jamia Coop. Bank Ltd.
Whereas, Sh. R. S. Krishnan, Asstt. Director, SCERT was appointed as Inspection Officer to conduct the inspection u/s 61 of the DCS Act 2003 vide this office order no. 182-187 dated 20/04/2017. Inspection office submitted his inspection report dated 09/08/2018 on 10/08/2018 which was duly considered by the Competent Authority.
Whereas, Sh. Syed Mohd. Nurullah vide letter dated 01/10/2019 requested to re-conduct the inspection of Jamia Coop Bank Ltd. 2003.
And whereas Addl RCS, after hearing, proposed to re-conduct the inspection u/s 61 of DCS Act.
Now therefore, in exercise of powers vested u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003, the Secretary-Cum-Registrar Cooperative Societies is pleased to appoint Sh. Rakesh Kumar Dahiya, DANICS to re-conduct Inspection of u/s 61 of the DCS Act 2003 on the above mentioned issues within 45 days from issue of this order.
The Bank shall pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the Inspection Officer from the funds of the Bank.
This issues with prior approval of Secretary-Cum- Registrar Cooperative Societies."
In terms of the above order, the inspection is to be reconducted under Section 61 of DCS Act.
11. Mr. Siddiqui, ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Bank submits that under Section 61 of the DCS Act, there is no power to conduct re-enquiry. He relies upon the various conclusions in the first report of Sh. P.C. Jain as also the second report of Sh. R.S. Krishnan and the special audit report. It is his submission that the first report could not have been taken into consideration, after the same was stayed by this Court on the ground that Mr. S. M. Imran did not have the locus to even maintain the said complaint. It was Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 13 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17 because of Mr. S. M. Noorullah adopting the complaint of Mr. S. M. Imran and SCN being issued by the RCS that the writ petition W.P.(C) 7006/2013 was disposed of.
12. There was a clear understanding in the order dated 30th January, 2017 which disposed of the writ petition W.P.(C) 7006/2013 that the proceedings qua the second complaint would continue afresh and not on the basis of the first report.
13. In addition, Mr. Siddiqui, ld. Counsel has also taken the Court through the various conclusions in the special audit report dated 31st May, 2019 to argue that none of the allegations against the Petitioner Bank are made out and the same are baseless.
14. Mr. Hussain, ld. Counsel, on the other hand, appearing on behalf of the complainant Sh. S. M. Noorullah takes the position that there were serious discrepancies in the report of Sh. R.S. Krishnan in comparison to the first report of Sh. P.C. Jain. It is his submission that under Rule 82 of the DCS Rules the Registrar has the power to conduct re-enquiry if the facts so call for. It is further submitted that the proceedings in the present re-enquiry are continuing and therefore, the same ought to be allowed to continue.
15. Mr. Anubhav Gupta, ld. Counsel appearing for the RCS relies upon the contradictions in the two reports to justify the impugned order directing re- enquiry.
16. This Court has considered the matter. Firstly, there is no reason given in the impugned order as to why re-conduct of inspection under Section 61 of DCS Act is being directed. A perusal of Section 61 of DCS Act would show that the inspection can be directed by the RCS when a serious complaint is made by a member of the concerned Co-operative Society or a public servant Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 14 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17 in writing. In this case, Sh. S. M. Imran was neither a member nor a public servant and therefore this Court had already stayed the proceedings pursuant to the first enquiry report in W.P.(C) 7006/2013 vide order dated 8th November, 2013.
17. The Registrar in this case had passed the order after the inspection was conducted by Sh. R.S. Krishnan. After the report dated 29th January, 2020 of Sh. R.S.Krishnan was submitted to the Registrar, the Additional RCS made the following noting in respect of the complaint of Sh. S. M. Noorullah:
"The complainant may be advised to file appeal before the Appellate forum."
18. Thereafter, the matter was also treated as closed on 23rd February, 2021. The relevant noting by the Additional RCS is extracted hereunder:-
"In view of the report of IO u/s 61 of DCS Act 2003 and the comments of Bank and the complainant the matter may be closed."
19. From the above two office notings, it is clear that the Additional RCS was satisfied with the second enquiry report as also the special audit which was conducted and accordingly, decided not to proceed under Section 62 of DCS Act with the inquiry against the bank. This decision of the Additional RCS was appealable under Section 112 of the DCS Act, however, the Complainant did not file any appeal. Thereafter, a fresh inquiry was directed by the impugned order dated 4th September, 2021 which is under challenge herein.
20. Clearly, the re-conduct of inspection vide order dated 14th September, 2021 which is the impugned order would in effect mean that this would be the fourth inspection of the records of the Petitioner bank. The first was the Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 15 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17 inspection report of Sh. P.C. Jain; the second was by Sh. R.S. Krishnan; and the third was the special audit by the special auditor. If inquiries are permitted to be conducted in this manner on a repeated basis, there shall be no finality or closure to the issue. Sections 61 and 62 do not mention re-enquiry. Section 112(g) clearly makes an order passed under Section 62 appealable. The said Section reads as under:
112. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 113, an appeal shall lie under this section against-
[...]
(g) an order made by the Registrar under section 64 apportioning the cost of an inspection held under section 61 or an inquiry made under section 62.
21. Reliance is placed on Rule 82 of the DCS Rules to argue that under Rule 82(1)(d), re-enquiry is permitted. The said Rule reads as under:
"(d) cost of inquiry and name of the co-
operative society or person who shall bear the cost if an inquiry is undertaken by the Registrar, the Registrar shall order inquiry or re-inquiry only after receipt of fees from the applicant or applicants, deemed sufficient to meet the costs of the inquiry to be conducted;"
22. The main Section i.e., Section 61 of DCSA does not contemplate a re- enquiry. The remedy provided to any person aggrieved by an inspection or an enquiry report accepted by the RCS would be to file an appeal. If such an interpretation is not adopted, it would lead to a situation where Complainants would continue to file complaints repeatedly and would not rest until a report is generated in their favour. Such an interpretation would also make Section 61 of DCS Act unworkable. There may be exceptions and reasons such as Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 16 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17 fraud etc., which, if raised may be required to be looked into by the RCS to order a fresh enquiry, but for the said purpose, proper reasons have to be given
- which are clearly absent in the present case. The impugned order does not give any reasons for ordering re-enquiry.
23. The ld. Counsel for the Complainant - Sh. S.M. Noorulla at this stage submits that his client may be given an opportunity to file an appeal against the impugned order.
24. Accordingly, without making any further observations, it is directed that the Respondent No.5 - Sh. S. M. Noorullah may challenge the orders dated 29th January, 2020 accepting the report of Sh. R.S. Krishnan and the order dated 23rd February, 2021 closing the matter passed by the Additional RCS, New Delhi.
25. If the appeal is filed within a period of 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground being barred by limitation as the limitation period under Section 112(2) is a period of 60 days for challenging the order. If the appeal is filed within a period of 30 days, the same shall be heard on merits.
26. Needless to add, nothing observed in this order shall have any bearing on the merits of the matter.
27. Petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE [ RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE MARCH 17, 2025 Rahul/kk/msh Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAHUL W.P.(C) 10920/2021 Page 17 of 17 Signing Date:19.03.2025 21:44:17