Remanded

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. v. Deputy General Manager / Complaint Redressal Officer, Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Sangli and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2014WP/8889/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a communication denying loan waiver benefits for failing to provide an opportunity of being heard to petitioners. The court directed the bank to act in accordance with the scheme and allow the petitioners to appear and produce documents before the Grievance Redressal Officer. Merits remain open.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication dated 18th May, 2011 quashed; Petitioners directed to appear before Grievance Redressal Officer on 6th January, 2015 with documents.

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. Vs Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

WP8889-11.12

1/4

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8889 OF 2012

¶7

Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and another ...Petitioners. versus Deputy General Manager/ Complaint Redressal Officer Sangli Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. G.M. Savagave for the Petitioners. Mr. G.H. Keluskar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. H.V. Mehta and Mr. R.C. Master for Respondent No.3.

¶9

….. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶10

11^th December, 2014.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the First and Second Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Third Respondent.

¶13

Rule. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶14

One of the grievances made in the Petition is that the Grievance Redressal Officer appointed by the Sangli Urban Cooperative Bank Limited in terms of Agricultural Debt Waiver and

WP8889-11.12

2/4

PNP

Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 did not give any opportunity to the Petitioners of being heard and any opportunity to produce the documents. The submission is that the impugned communication issued by the Grievance Redressal Officer dated 18^th May, 2011 is illegal.

¶19

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the First and Second Respondents is that in fact the Petitioners had given an undertaking which shows that they fall in the category of “other agriculturalists”. He, therefore, submitted that in terms of the aforesaid scheme, the Petitioners were not entitled for the benefit of debt waiver.

¶20

In the Writ Petition there is a specific ground urged in the form of ground (b) regarding the failure of the Grievance Redressal Officer to give notice to the Petitioners and to give them an opportunity of being heard. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Shri Bajarang Ramrao Hadadare, Deputy General Manager of the bank, he has not stated that any opportunity of being heard was granted to the Petitioners. He has merely stated that Grievance Redressal Officer informed the Petitioners by a

WP8889-11.12

3/4

PNP

communication dated 18^th May, 2011 that the action of the bank of denying benefits of the loan waiver scheme was proper and legal. We have perused the letter dated 18^th May, 2011. It refers to the grievance in the form of complaint made by the Petitioners and the letter of the bank's advocate. It merely observes that the action taken by the bank was legal and proper. Even the said communication does not suggest that an opportunity of being heard was granted by the Grievance Redressal Officer to the Petitioners. The issue to be decided by the Grievance Redressal Officer was whether the Petitioners were entitled to benefits of debt waiver scheme. The said issue could have been decided only after giving an opportunity to the Petitioners to produce the documents and an opportunity of being heard.

¶25

Hence, we pass the following order :

¶26

i) The impugned communication dated 18^th May, 2011 is quashed and set aside;

¶27

ii) We direct the Petitioners to appear before the Grievance Redressal Officer of the Sangli Urban Co-operative Bank, Sangli on 6^th January, 2015 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the

WP8889-11.12

4/4

PNP

said officer. The Petitioners shall produce all the documents on which they want to rely upon before the said officer on that day. No further time shall be granted to the Petitioners to produce the documents;

¶32

iii) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioners and after perusing the documents, the Grievance Redressal Officer shall pass an appropriate order on the grievances of the Petitioners;

¶33

iv)All contentions on merits are kept open;

¶34

v) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms;

¶35

vi)All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶36

(A.S. Oka, J.)

¶37

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. v. Deputy General Manager / Complaint Redressal Officer, Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Sangli and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Prakash Agatrao Ghadge and Ors. v. Deputy General Manager / Complaint Redressal Officer, Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Sangli and Ors.

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

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Vitthal Corporation Limited, through Authorised Signatory, Shri. Prakash Shamrao Patil Vs the Commissioner of Sugar and Ors.

Shri. Dagadu Nanu Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharani Tararani Shetkari Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Ltd, through Manager, S. D. Telvekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing Dept and Ors.

Mr. Dwaranand Daman Dicholkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Jayesh Jivraj Gajora Vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.