Chattisgarh High Court
Anjaneya Educational Society vs Bank Of Baroda Formerly Dena Bank A ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 606 of 2018
Order reserved on : 12/05/2023
Order passed on : 25/08/2023
Anjaneya Educational Society, a Registered Society Bearing
Registration No. 24631, Registered Head Office 153, New Civic
Centre, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through its President
Anil Singh, S/o Late Shri V.N. Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
52/13, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda Formerly Dena Bank a Government of India
Enterprise, Through Managing Director/General Manager,
Baroda House, Mandvi, Baroda/ Baroda Bhawan, 7th Floor, RC
Dutt Road, Vadodara, 390007, Gujrat.
2. Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Durg, First
Floor, Zonal Market, Sector 10, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
3. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Skill
Development And Entrepreneurship, 2nd Floor, Annexe Building,
Shivaji Stadium, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi
4. The Director, National Skill Development Corporation, 301-306,
3rd Floor, West Wing, World Mark 1, Aerocity, New Delhi, District :
New Delhi, Delhi
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Samantray, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Order
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.2- Chief Manager of Dena Bank (now Bank of Baroda).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Society is registered under Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act 1973 on 19.11.2012 bearing Registration No. 24631. Initially in the year 2014, the petitioner Society was registered under the Mukhyamantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana of State of Chhattisgarh with the Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Authority and the Bank of Baroda was the bank which dealt with the transactions of the petitioner Society under above scheme, and under Skill Development Initiative Scheme run by Director General of Employment and Training, work of about Rs.20 lakhs were executed and paid to the petitioner without any hindrance. Thereafter petitioner Society was registered under Pradhanmantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana in the year 2015, which is run under the Ministry of Skill Development Entrepreneurship which has constituted National Skill Development Corporation (for short NSDC) for development of skill among the people by way of public private partnership.
3. The petitioner society adopted credit policy/procedure whereby after registration target and approval of students, opened the accounts of students in nationalized bank i.e. Respondent Dena Bank Branch Bhilai 3, District Durg with auto debit form/mandate form duly signed by student trainee and adhar card of student as KYC norms and submitted the details again with account numbers of students with adhar card in the portal of NSDC and after following all above procedure, the reward amount of successfully passed student was deposited in the bank account of students in respondent No.2 Branch of respondent No.1 Bank. The reward amount of about 845 students for the year 2015 was 3 immediately transferred to the account of petitioner Society by Dena Bank Bhilai-3 Branch of respondent Bank without any demur and protest. However, when the petitioner Society changed the Branch of operations and after transferring the amount of 170 students, Manager of respondent No.2 Branch changed, the problem started. Immediately the representation and strict objection was made by the petitioner Society before the Bank for disbursement of amount to the students and police complaint was made by the students. Thereafter, police enquiry was conducted and everything was found in accordance with Pradhanmantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana and no case was made against the petitioner Society.
4. With a view to linger on the matter, respondent Bank Manager sent the case for approval to the zonal office of respondent Bank from where the same was forwarded to the DGM Legal Cell of Dena Bank at Mumbai and DGM Legal Cell granted approval for transfer of reward amount in the account of petitioner Society but respondent Bank manager despite approval of DGM Legal Cell of respondent Bank, sought the legal opinion from a local based panel advocate and issued the impugned order (Ex.P/1) to petitioner society directing them to submit new mandate of 3000 students within one month failing which money will be disbursed in the account of the students. Once the money will be disbursed then it cannot be recovered resulting in complete loss of about Rs. 3.2 crores of the petitioner society. Therefore, this petition is filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:-
10.1 the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the impugned order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.2 and the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the reward amount deposited in the accounts of students/trainees under the Pradhanmantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana, in the current account No.093811023898 of the petitioner society of respondent Bank of Baroda formerly Dena Bank, 4 Sector 10, Bhilai Branch, with 18% interest from the date of deposit of the said amount by the NSDC in the account of students/trainees, till date of transfer in the account of petitioner society, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 13.02.2018 is arbitrary, unreasonable, unauthorized, unwarranted, therefore, liable to be set aside. The petitioner is duly registered under the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas scheme and trained 3733 students duly in accordance with law as per the prescribed procedure of scheme after due approvals. The petitioner Society trained 3733 students under the PMKVY scheme on credit basis without taking a single penny from the students and after successful assessment/passing training course, certificates are issued and reward amount is deposited in the account of the students in respondent No.2 Branch by NSDC under the scheme.
6. All the accounts were opened in respondent No.2 Branch as per direction of respondent No.2 Branch by duly submitting Bank account opening form, auto debit form adhar card duly signed by the students bearing current account number of petitioner Society granted by respondent no. 2 as no current account number can be generated by petitioner Society of respondent No.2 Branch and the same can be provided by the respondent Bank only. Reward money of 845 students was easily transferred without any hurdle in the account of petitioner Society by Dena Bank, Branch Bhilai-3 but only after appointment of a new Branch Manager in respondent No.2 Bank, the problem got worsening day by day and despite approval of DGM of Legal Cell, Mumbai of respondent Dena Bank, till date reward amount is not transferred by respondent No.2 Branch. No specific reason at all is assigned regarding inconsistencies in each mandate 5 form of each student and the impugned order is issued to file fresh mandate of more than 3000 students/ trainees of the year 2016 within a month which is impossible.
7. On the complaint of the students, police enquiry was made in which entire action of petitioner Society was found in accordance with scheme and law. If the account numbers of the students accounts are not mentioned in the mandate forms then the same is fault on the part of the Bank and not of the petitioner Society. Allegation of non-signing of mandate form by some students is again without any specification giving details of students, so that legal action both civil and criminal can be taken against those students. The respondent Bank is earning interest and doing business by withholding huge amount of approximately 3.2 crores under the said scheme of petitioner Society. Once the money will be disbursed then the same cannot be recovered and the petitioner Society will suffer irreparable loss.
8. The impugned order dated 13.02.2018 is passed on the basis of assumption and presumption, without any specification and without application of mind.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the instant petition is not maintainable as there are several disputed questions of fact involved in the instant petition which cannot be decided in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Pradhanmantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) is an initiative by Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship that aims to offer Indian youth industry relevant skill based training. Under the scheme, trainees are offered a financial reward and government certification on successful completion of training which will help them in securing job for better future. National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) processes the reward money of eligible candidates. The reward money is then transferred to candidates' Bank account.
10. The training is given by various nominated institutions all over 6 the country. One of the such institution is Anjaneya Education Society i.e. the petitioner. The institution can decide on the course fee and may either charge the fee upfront or may choose to provide training on credit basis. As per guideline of PMKVY the training fee and assessment fee, if not charged upfront from the candidate may be auto-debited through the multi wallet facility from trainees' Bank account and may be credited to training partner Bank account as per the terms and conditions signed between the candidates and the training partner. For this it is necessary to have a tripartite agreement between students, Bank and the training institution. In the instant case, there is no tripartite agreement between the parties and as such, the answering respondent is not bound to debit the funds of account holders to the petitioner society without consent of account holders (as per the instructions of NSDC).
11.In clear violation of guidelines, the Society did not execute any tripartite agreement with Bank, the student and itself. At the time of opening of accounts, auto debit mandate forms were taken by the society from the students which authorizes transfer of Rs.10,000/- from their saving banks received from National Skill Development Corporation to current account of petitioner society, after the amount is deposited by the Government in the students account. The mandates were then submitted to Branch of Dena Bank by the society. Since training is now completed, the reward money of Rs.10,000/- has been transferred by NSDC through NEFT in various students accounts. Hence, amount received in students saving account is required to be debited from the students account and to be credited in account of petitioner Society. as per mandate given by the students at the time of opening the account
12. Many of the students have approached the Bank for withdrawing amount from their individual account for their own purpose stating that the funds rightfully belongs to them as National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) has given the funds as part of 7 the reward money for passing examinations. Also they were under the belief that training was free of cost and the reward money was given to them for starting of business. Most of the students have approached the Bank with request to cancel the mandate and allow them to withdraw money. Copy of objection/representation is annexed as Annexure R/1. Since bank has not entered into any tripartite agreement, it can only fall upon the mandate given by the students authorizing the bank to transfer the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Society account. As per the banking law, mandate given by the person can be revoked at any time.
13.Since there were demands from the students for releasing the money to them instead of the Society, the Branch was hesitant to effect the transfers and submitted the details to the head office- Legal Department for guidance in the matter who opined that in cases which are not disputed by the students the amount lying in the credit of the accounts which are fully KYC compliance along with the bank official's signature may be transferred to the Society subject to the following:-
1. Original Auto Debit Mandate of Rs.10,000/- from the student in favour of Anjaneya Society should have been submitted to the Bank at the time of opening of account.
2. Indemnity bond executed/ to be executed by the Society indemnifying the Bank against any future claim/loss etc.
14. Since the students were disputing the mandate, the answering respondent made a close inspection of the mandate where it is found that mandate executed is faulty. Some of the students also approached the bank and complained that some of the mandate forms submitted by the Society were not signed by the concerned students and hence mandates do not represent them. Some of the account holders have also lodged criminal complaint to the Police in-charge, Bhilai Nagar on 17.03.2018 8 alleging that their saving account have been opened in the bank by their false signature in the bank form. Copy of police complaint is filed as Annexure R/2.
15. In view of these circumstances, Bank decided to obtain legal opinion from Bank panel advocate regarding the same to ensure the validity and correctness of the mandates. Bank on its own cannot transfer the money from any account without the consent of the account holder. Hence there is necessity of the valid and correct mandate, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner did not ask for any relief from respondent No.3 therefore, it cannot be arrayed as a necessary party in this petition.
17.Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that Annexure P/2 reads as under:-
"TP may choose not to charge the course fee (& assessment fee) from a candidate upfront and deduct it later from the reward money received by the candidate. This is facilitated through a tripartite agreement between bank, TP and the student."
18.Thus, it is clear from the above that the issue of rewarding the money and the method, which is real question and controversy involved in the present petition, is purely governed by tripartite agreement between the bank/respondents No.1 and 2, Training Partner/ petitioner and the students. Hence respondent No.4 is not a necessary party in this petition. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have raised certain technical objections and the impugned order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P/1) has been passed.
19. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
20. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed Annexures R/1 and R/2 mentioning complaints of some students but as per scheme, petitioner is entitled for amount as per Annexure P/2 which is facilitated through tripartite agreement between the bank, TP and the students. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 9 objected that some of the students have objected but as per petitioner other students have filled proper form as per scheme. The issue involved in this petition requires sufficient evidence for proper adjudication and it cannot be decided by this Court only after argument of the parties. It needs a full trial on facts and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, final order can be passed.
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has spent huge amount in imparting training to the unemployed students and issued certificate, therefore, in the interest of justice, respondent No.2 bank be directed to transfer the reward amount of the students whose auto mandate forms are correct and deposit the same in the account of the petitioner.
22. Looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent nos. 1 and 2 Bank to transfer the reward amount to the students whose auto debit mandate forms are correct and deposit the same in the account of the petitioner Society. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition before appropriate forum for redressal of its grievances, if so advised.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge Ruchi