Petitioner challenged inaction of Banking Ombudsman on an appeal against a bank's order. Court directed third respondent to decide within six weeks and produced the judgment for compliance.
The third respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 appeal within six weeks from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21432 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
JASEELA ASHARAF, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. LATE ASHARAF, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, P.O.KARANDODE, KUTTIADY, KOZHIKODE-673 508
BY ADVS. B.KRISHNAN R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENTS:
3 THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, (IN CHARGE OF IMPLEMENTING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME), RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033
BY SRI.M.JITHESH MENON, STANDING COUNSEL-SBT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21432 of 2021
..2..
W.P.(C)No.21432 of 2021
J U D G M E N T
In the nature of the order I propose to pass in the writ petition, no notice need be issued to the third respondent.
It is seen that Ext.P6 appeal is one preferred by the petitioner as early as on 24.09.2020. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 appeal within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the third respondent.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
rkj
W.P.(C) No.21432 of 2021
..3..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21432/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03.08.2019 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.06.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.07.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE COMPLAINT
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.07.2020
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 18.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2020 TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 14 OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN SCHEME AGAINST THE ORDER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.09.2020
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF DETAILS SHOWING DELIVERY OF THE APPEAL ON 30.09.2020 FORM POSTAL AUTHORITIES
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Banking Ombudsman is directed to decide the pending appeal within a fixed period.
Whether the petitioner can be directed to produce the judgment for compliance before the Ombudsman.
JASEELA ASHARAF
THE MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE/STATE BANK OF INDIA
THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN
THE DEPUTY GOVERNOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
