Telangana High Court
Mukund Maheswari vs Union Of India on 1 May, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12157 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the closure intimation, dated 16.11.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and set aside the closure intimation, dated 16.11.2023 and consequently direct respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.3 based on the petitioners' representation, dated 10.11.2023 under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.
2. Heard Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner, M/s. N.V.R.Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1, Sri B.Nalin Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioners is that they have submitted a complaint, dated 10.11.2023 against respondent No.3 alleging that respondent No.3 has conducted the proceedings under the 2 CVBR, J Wp_12157_2024 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFESI Act") without adhering the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the Rules made there under. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 while adjudicating the claims against the petitioners has colluded with the tenants and passed the orders against the interest of the petitioners. It is stated that after knowing the same, the petitioners have lodged a complaint, dated 10.11.2023 before respondent No.2 requesting to take appropriate action against respondent No.3 in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and under the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has closed the said complaint without considering the allegations mentioned therein and without giving any reasons for its closure.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 has not given any reasons while closing the complaint, dated 10.11.2023 submitted by them. Since it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has not adhere the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and the closure intimation, dated 16.11.2023 is bereft of reasons, this Court 3 CVBR, J Wp_12157_2024 deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 to examine the complaint, dated 10.11.2023 submitted by the petitioner afresh and take appropriate action on the complaint, after providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and respondent No.3, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 01.05.2024 gkv