Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (in Person) Vs Reserve Bank of India

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:9500-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.25 17:58:16 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

REVP No. 39 of 2025

¶7

Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale S/o Late Shri Ashok Kale Aged About 46 Years R/o Kale Wada, Tilak Nagar, Main Road, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 Mob 9425530260

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Reserve Bank Of India Through Governor, Reserve Bank Of India, 4th Floor, Amar Building, Sir P.M. Road Mumbai- 400 001 (M.S.)

¶11

2 - State Bank Of India (Lead Banker/ Sponsor - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank), Chairman- SBI, SBI Headquarters, State Bank Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai (M.S.)

¶12

3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director, Directorate Of Institutional Finance C.G. Govt., Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Chairman, Corporate Office Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Cg)

¶14

5 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through Branch Manager - Lingyadih, Raj Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur (Cg) 495006

¶15

6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Collector / District Magistrate

¶16

District Bilaspur, Collectorate Building, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

For Applicant : Dr.Sachin Ashok Kale in person For Respondent : Mr.P.R.Patankar, Advocate No.2 For Respondents : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate No.3 and 6/State

¶19

2

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶24

25.02.2025

¶25

1. Heard petitioner Dr.Sachin Ashok Kale in person as well as Mr.P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 6/State.

¶26

2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.20 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

¶27

3. The petitioner in person submits that the finding of learned Single Judge is that since the matter is under DRT, this Court has no jurisdiction over proceedings, which was always from the relief desired by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not challenged any action proceeded by the respondents under SARFASSAI Act and the same is not in pleading in writ Appeal No.20/2025 and WPC No.5712/2024, the jurisdiction issue does not arise and hence, the orders dated 21.01.2025 and 28.11.2024 are liable to be set aside. He also submits that the petitioner is being aggrieved by no proper action taken by respondent No.1

¶28

3

¶29

against the complaint of the petitioner against respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 is involved in the unfair practice and same is supported by respondent No.1 as respondent No.1 has not properly scrutinized the complaint and the reply filed by respondent No.4 against the corrected procedure followed by the petitioner, which was not taken into consideration by this Court while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner is out of remedy against the action taken by respondent No.1 in the instant case and had not found any appropriate authority or forum for redressal of his grievances in the instant matter. All such available remedy has been already taken by the applicant in advance, before filing writ petition and writ appeal. As such, the review petition deserves to be allowed and the judgment dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.20 of 2025 may be recalled/reviewed.

¶30

4. We have perused the impugned judgment under review.

¶31

5. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law.

¶32

6. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would

¶33

4

¶34

amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law ( Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai¹ , Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)² , Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others³ , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others⁴ , Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others⁵ and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others⁶ .)

¶35

7. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction.

¶36

8. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed . No cost(s).

¶37

Sd/- Sd/-

¶38

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

Bablu

¶40