Madras High Court
Mahasemam Trust vs Reserve Bank Of India on 19 August, 2020
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD).No.8153 of 2020
Mahasemam Trust
A Public Trust
Represented by its Trustee
Dr.Prabhu Vairavan Prakasam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Reserve Bank of India
Represented by its Regional Manager
Fort Glacis, No.16
Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001\
2.CRIF High Mark Credit Information
Service Private Limited
FOFB-04, 05,06 Fourth Floor
Art Guild House
Phoenix Market City
CTS No.124/B, LBS Marg
Kurla West
Mumbai 400 070
3.M/s.Kaira Microcredit Private Limited
Flat No.G-1, VIP Apartments
Lake Area Main Road
Melur Road
Uthangudi
Madurai 625 107 ... Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/6
2 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020
Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the records of the second respondent Advanced Overlap Report)
dated 18.06.2020 for members of the petitioner numbering 7,779- Hi
Mark Credit Information Service describing them as “DELINQUENT”
and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to comply
with the Notification dated 27.03.2020 and 28.05.2020 issued by the first
respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subramanian
Senior Counsel
***
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
2.The writ petitioner challenges the action of the second respondent in characterizing 7,779 persons as delinquents in their impugned credit information report.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the persons who have been characterized as delinquents http://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 3 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020 by the second respondent in their credit information report are clients of the petitioner trust. The petitioner trust is a credit institution. According to him, the petitioner is having locus standi to question the impugned report. He would place reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 SC 2092 – (1975) 2 SCC 702 (Bar Council of Maharastra Vs. M.V.Dabholkar), (1976) 1 SCC 671 ( Jasbhai Moti Bhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar Haji, Basheer Ahamed and others) and (2013) 4 SCC 465 (Ayyaubkhan Noorkhanpathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others). He would further submit that this Court should approach the issue from a over all perspective of the entire statutory scheme as set out in the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005. He took me through the relevant definitions and contended that the affected persons are very much clients of the petitioner and that therefore, in view of the code of conduct applicable to the credit institution, he would not able to disburse any financial assistance to them. The learned Senior Counsel's contention is that the petitioner's lending business would be affected seriously and that gives the petitioner locus standi to file this writ petition. http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 4 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020
4. The learned Senior counsel also took me to the terms of announcement made by the Reserve Bank of India and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P (C) Urgent 5 of 2020 (Anant Raj Limited Vs.Yes Bank Limited ) reported in 2020 SCC Online Del
543. He submitted that in as much as the petitioner cannot act as provider for the affected individuals, he wanted this Court to uphold the maintainability of this writ petition.
5. I must straight away hold that the petitioner is not having any locus standi to question the impugned credit information report of the second respondent. The persons aggrieved can only be those borrowers who have been characterized as delinquents. The petitioner is not justified in invoking the terms of the code of conduct applicable to the credit institutions. The said code of conduct only states that the provider should not lend financial assistance to the persons who have been shown defaulters. Such information is only in the interest of the petitioner institution.
6.I am of the view that the impugned report does not affect the petitioner in any way. The petitioner can on the other hand be said to be http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 5 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020 benefited by the impugned credit information report. I find no ground to entertain this writ petition. This writ petition is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.08.2020
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
msa
Note : 1. Issue order copy on 20.08.2020.
2. In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 6 W.P.(MD)NO.8896 OF 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
msa W.P.(MD)No.8896 of 2020 and W.M.P(MD).No.8153 of 2020 19.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6