Disposed

P v. K Srinivasa Raju v Canara Bank Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2023WP/9950/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A panel valuer challenged a notice alleging irregularities in valuation reports and threatened inclusion in a caution list. The High Court held that such action was arbitrary and directed the bank to provide the report and grant one month to reply, imposing costs on the bank for causing unnecessary litigation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent bank to furnish the valuation report information and grant the petitioner one month time to submit a detailed explanation. The writ petition was disposed of with costs of Rs. 5

P v K Srinivasa Raju Vs Canara Bank Limited — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9950 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. V. K. Srinivasa Raju, S/o. Late Venkat Narsimha Raju, Aged About 61 Years, Occ: Panel Valuator Resident of D.No. 2-5-16/1, Penumastavari Street, Sivarao Peta, Bhimavaram, West Godavari Dist., A.P.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1. Canara Bank Limited, rep. By its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer Head Office, 112, JC Road, Bengaluru - 560002.

¶12

2. The Chief General Manager Canara Bank, Having Office At Head Office. 112, JC Road, Bengaluru- 560002.

¶13

3. Deputy General Manager Canara Bank, RM and CR Section Circle Office Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus<declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing notice vide Ref. No. COyiJ; RM and CR . 1 . 2023-24.PBS dated 10-042023, thereby initiating^the process to notify the Petitioner's name to IBA (Indian Banks Association) for inclusion in the caution list mandated by Reserve Bank of India for circulating amongst the member Banks and further reporting to self regulatory professional bodies like ICAI/ICWA, institute of valuers and Institute of Engineers, Council of Architecture etc., as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and to issue consequential direction to withdraw the notice, vide Ref. No. COVIJ. RM and CR . 1. 2023-24.PBS dated 10-04-2023 issued by the 3^*^ Respondent.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the notice of Respondent vide Ref. No. COVIJ; RM & CR :1 ; 2o23-24:PBS dated 10-04-2023, until pending disposal of the Writ Petition. . -

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.K. RAFI FOR SRI ALMAS BEGUM MOHAMMED Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T. B. L. MURTHY

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.9950 OF 2023

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This. Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶24

"....to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing notice vide Ref No.COVIJ: RM 8s CR : 1 : 202324:PBS dated 10.04.2023; thereby initiating the process to notify the Petitioner's name to IBA (Indian Banks Association) for inclusion in the caution list mandated by Reserve Bank of India for circulating amongst the member Banks and further reporting to self regulatory professional bodies like ICAI/ICWA, institute of valuers and Institute of Engineers, Council of Architecture etc., as illegal arbitrary and in violation of Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and to issue consequential direction to withdraw the notice vide Ref. No. COVIJ: RM 8b CR: 1 : 2023-24 : PBS dated 10.04.2023 issued by the 3^ Respondent and pass....” 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner name has been included as a qualified panel valuer in the respondent, bank since 2014 and the same is renewable once in every 5 years and accordingly the petitioner’s name was renewed in the year 2022 to type “CEfLfisB)” in category ‘A’. He rendered his services in

¶25

¶26

giving valuations successfully and around 1000 valuations were done since the date of petitioner’s empanelment in the RespondentBank. Apart from the respondent-bank, the petitioner is also an approved valuer for other Nationalized Banks and he is extending services as panel valuer since 23 years to the said banks.

¶27

It is further case of the petitioner that, he has received notice dated 10.04.2023 from the 3«* respondent with respect to the loan account of M/s. Vantage Machine Tools Private Limited, wherein the 3«* respondent allegedly stated that irregularities have been observed in the valuation report for three properties A, B 8b C more specifically mentioned in the notice which were offered by the borrower to the Respondent-Bank as collateral security under mortgage to obtain the financial facilities.

¶28

It is further case that, as per the said impugned notice the irregularities observed for all the properties are all one and the same i.e., clear demarcation is not available for the land, and the shape of the land is irregular and the path way is gravel road, the land falls under the developing area and the petitioner has valued the. higher rate for the land and buildings and thus furnished wrong market value of the properties and facilitated the borrowers to avail much higher amount of loan than actual eligible amount.

¶29

¶30

5. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner approached the respondent Bank and requested to give a copy of the valuation report submitted by him in which the irregularities were observed and sought one month time to reply for the allegations in the notice impugned, point wise as he is not having the report submitted to the barik which is of the year 2018. The 3*^ respondent authority instead of giving one month time extended 7 days to offer the reply to the notice and further rejected to provide a copy of the report though requested. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.

¶31

6. Heard Sri S.K.Rafi, learned counsel, representing Sri Almas Mohammed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for respondents.

¶32

7. Sfi S.K.Rafi, learned counsel, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the valuation report was given in the year 2018, the respondent-bank has issued notice dated 10.04.2023 thereby asked to give written version within 7 days; After receiving the said notice, the petitioner himself approached the 3’^^ respondent bank and asked to furnish the . valuation report given by the petitioner in the year 2018 in order to give explanation and sought one month time. But the authority did not provide one month time and also has not provided a copy of the

¶33

1.11 I—"

¶34

¶35

valuation report given in the year 2018. The representation dated 14.04.2023 given to the 3^^ respondent-bank is filed before this Court and drawn the attention of this Court to the same.

¶36

He further contended that without passing any orders pursuant to the notice given by the bank dated 10.04.2023 the respondent-bank is contemplating to take steps against the petitioner by including the petitioner’s name in the caution list being maintained' by Indian Banks Association. He further submitted that so far the bank has not filed counter in this case, accordingly interim orders passed by this Court dated 20.04.2023 may be made absolute and the matter may be disposed of by directing the respondent-bank to pass appropriate orders in the event if they want to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law pursuant to the notice dated 10.04.2023.

¶37

On the other hand, Sri T.B.L.Murthy, learned counsel for respondents, without filing any counter, submitted that, it is not understood as to why the writ petition has been filed without submitting explanation to the notice. The petitioner should have submitted the explanation as sought by the bank. However, he further submitted that. a liberty may be given to the petitioner to submit explanation in one month from today and writ petition may . be disposed of, with such a direction.

fe.

Perused the record.

¶42

The respondent has issued notice dated 10.04.2023 to the petitioner duly asking explanation to the allegations leveled against him in the said show cause notice within one week. Having received the said notice, the petitioner submitted representation dated 14.04.2023 asking one month time in order to collect valuation reports to note the particulars of the properties. The bank did not respond to the said representation dated 14.04.2023 till today. If the petitioner was provided the information as sought by him and was given one month time, the petitioner would not have approached this Court. The respondent bank have caused inconvenience to the petitioner and thereby driven him to the Court for no fault of him. Further, when the matter is taken up for consideration today, it is surprised to hear . as to how the learned counsel agreed to give one month time to the petitioner for submitting explanation. If the respondent-bank has given one month time, the petitioner would not have filed the present Writ Petition. After filing the present Writ Petition, at this length of time, the bank has come forward by saying that one month time may be given to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The said attitude of bank is un-sustainable and caused inconvenience to the petitioner for which this Court is

¶43

¶44

inclined to impose some costs on the Bank, for driving the petitioner to the Court unnecessarily. Now the bank has intention to give one month time to the petitioner, there is no purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending, as such, this court is inclined to pass following order:

¶45

The respondent-bank is directed to furnish the information as sought by the petitioner in his representation dated 14.04.2023. On receipt of such information, the petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed explanation within period of one month thereafter. The respondent-bank is directed to pay costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the petitioner.

¶46

Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall

¶47

stand closed.

¶48

Sd/- S. SRINIVASA PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SECTION OFFICER

¶51

and Chief Executive Officer Canara Bank Limited.

¶52

Head Office, 112, JC Road; Bengaluru - 560002. General Manager Canara Bank, Having Office At Head Office 112

¶53

JC Road, Bengaluru - 560002.

¶54

1. Deputy General Manager Canara Bank, RM and CR Section Circle Office Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶55

One CC to Sri Almas Begum Mohammed, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri T. B. L. Murthy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two C.D. Copies Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:25/07/2023

ORDER

WP.No.9950 of 2023

¶61

fBt

¶62

1 3 SEP 2023 . Current Section

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

P v. K Srinivasa Raju v Canara Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. K Srinivasa Raju v Canara Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Sharief Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R Ravi Vs the State of Ap

Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy/Satish Vs the Union of India

A Subramanyam Reddy Vs the State Chief Information Commissioner

T Murali Krishna Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd.

Allam Padmavathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh