IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.167/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
ARVIND S RAJAMANYA, S/O LATE S. M. RAJAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.121, 38TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 082 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARVIND S. RAJAMANYA, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
1. OFFICE OF THE BANIKING OMBUDSMAN KARNATAKA, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, 11TH FLOOR, 10/3/08, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560001 REP. BY BANKING OMBUDSMAN 2. MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LTD., 310, 9TH MAIN, 39TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SHENOY, ADV. FOR R-2. R-1 IS DELETED V/O. DTD 31.08.2017) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER THE PETITION MADE TO IT DTD.11.11.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-H IN ALL SERIOUSNESS AND WITH DUE CARE AND ATTENTION, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SUBMISSION MADE THEREIN; AND AFTER APPLYING ITS MIND TO IT AND MAKE A REPLY TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PASSING ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the petition made by him dated 11.11.2015 and pass orders in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner contends that having noticed certain advertisement in English daily newspaper, the petitioner had responded to the same. Though, the petitioner has adverted to the details of the same, I do not find it necessary to refer to those aspects of the matter at this point in time.
3. The grievance of the petitioner essentially is that the respondent No.2-Bank without discharging the functions in the manner in which it is required to discharge its functions has proceeded to clear the cheque which was purportedly presented as a cheque being issued by the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2-Bank has filed a petition before the respondent No.1 as at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner contends that though the said petition was filed on 11.11.2015, the respondent No.1 has not taken any action to consider the same in accordance with law. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. The petitioner no doubt has referred to the copy of the cheque to contend that the signature contained therein is not that of the petitioner and therefore, the respondent No.2-Bank having cleared the cheque without comparing the same with the specimen signatures available with them and also without referring to the minimum balance to be kept in the account is a dereliction of duty by the officer acting on behalf of respondent No.2 and therefore, the loss caused to the petitioner for such action is to be paid by the respondent No.2-Bank and in that regard, the respondent No.1 is required to consider the case as made out therein.
5. In this regard, since it is noticed that the petition dated 11.11.2015 as filed by the petitioner has not yet been considered in accordance with law one way or the other, this Court, at this juncture, need not pronounce upon the contention as put forth. However, keeping in view the nature of the allegation as made by the petitioner, the respondent No.1, after providing opportunity to respondent No.2 as well as the petitioner is required to take a decision in accordance with law. As the statutory function has not been discharged by the respondent No.1, an appropriate direction to consider and dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner within a time frame is necessary to be issued to respondent No.1.
6. In order to enable the consideration in a time frame, the petitioner is granted the liberty of filing one more copy of the petition and supporting documents along with a copy of this order with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall in such event, notify the respondent No.2 and upon hearing the parties shall consider the petition filed by the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but, not later than three months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished to the respondent No.1. All contentions of the parties are left open.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST