Dismissed

M/S.Puliyanmackal Traders Karuvanchal v. the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer,, South Indian Bank

Kerala HC17 Nov 2015WP(C)/27132/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a bank's failure to furnish an OTS sanction order under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court held this as a statutory matter and declined jurisdiction under Article 226 since specific appellate authorities exist for RTI disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition is dismissed for failure to exhaust statutory remedies under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

M/S.Puliyanmackal Traders Karuvanchal Vs the Chief… — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/26TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 27132 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.PULIYANMACKAL TRADERS, KARUVANCHAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOHN MATHEW.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶9

SRI.CYRIAC IYPE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, P.B.NO.933, CHAKKORATHUKULAM WEST HILL , P.O.KOZHIKODE9- 673005.

¶12

2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD, . P.B.NO.41, 1ST FLOOR, SWADESHI SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANK ROAD, KANNUR PIN 670001.

¶13

3. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, O/O.THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.

¶14

R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN, SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK R1,R 2 BY ADV. SRI.ASISH K.JOHN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 27132 of 2012 (N)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6/12/2010 ISSUED UNDER SEC.13(4)OF THE SARFAESI ACT

¶20

EXT-P2 . TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23/10/2010 IN WP(C).38315/2010(L)

¶21

EXT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/1/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MANAGER,KANNUR BRANCH

¶22

EXT-P4 . TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9/1/2012 OF THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER

¶23

EXT-P5 . TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER ON 27/2/2012

¶24

EXT-P6 . TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT TO PETITIONER'S LAWYER ON 16/3/2012

¶25

EXT-P7 . TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/6/2012 SENT BY THE CHIEF MANAGER OF KANNUR REGIONAL OFFICE

¶26

EXT-P8 . TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATD 14/8/2012 OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶27

EXT-P9 . TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10/10/2012 IN W.A.1816/2012 OF THIS COURT.

¶28

EXT-P10 . TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY JESSY M.THOMAS DATED 25/10/2012

¶29

EXT-P11 . TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/10/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BRANCH MANAGER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

¶30

EXT-P12 . TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1-11-2012 OF THE BRANCH MANAGER,KANNUR BRANCH.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS.: NIL

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.27132 of 2012

¶37

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2015.

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner is a partnership firm, which

¶40

availed of a loan for Rs.1.5 crores from the respondent

¶41

bank. The relief sought for in this writ petition is as follows:

¶42

“(i) issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P12, (ii) declare that the information sought for as per Ext.P10 is covered by the Right to Information Act and the Bank is liable to furnish the details sought for within time (iii) issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to receive Ext.P11 application and furnish the details sought for in Ext.P10 including the OTS sanction order forthwith (iv) declare that the petitioner firm is not liable to remit any further amount to the bank in view of the payment made before 30/11/2011 as part of OTS order etc.”

¶43

The main grievance projected in this writ

¶44

petition is that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to get the copy of the order sanctioning One Time

¶45

WP(C).27132/12 :2:

¶46

Settlement. But the same has not been served to the petitioner on the reason that the respondent bank will

¶47

not come under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent bank filed a counter statement to the effect that the respondent bank is a company registered under the Companies Act for the purpose of carrying out trade or business and for making profit. In short, the respondent is a private banking company under the control of the Reserve Bank of India only and the private companies would not be amenable to the Right to Information Act as well as writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶48

Obviously, the petitioner is aggrieved by the

¶49

non-issuance of the copy of the order by which the facility under 'One Time Settlement' has been granted to him. It is seen that the petitioner has not availed of the statutory remedies provided under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. This court is not inclined to resolve the dispute, whether the respondent bank would come under the purview of the

¶50

WP(C).27132/12 :3:

¶51

Right to Information Act, for which statutory appellate authority is specifically provided under Section 19 of the said Act. In the above view, this Court declines jurisdiction and this writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶54

okb.

M/S.Puliyanmackal Traders Karuvanchal v. the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer,, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Puliyanmackal Traders Karuvanchal v. the Chief Manager and Authorised Officer,, South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasad Vs the State of Kerala

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

P.Baburajan Vs State of Kerala

Suseela E.R. Vs Idukki District Mini Industrial Estate (Service) Co-Op.Society

T.P.Jayaprakasah Vs State of Kerala