IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.29354 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMITED POST BOX NO.5555, MALLESHWARAM WEST BANGALORE 560055.
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SRI. SOUMENDRA KUMAR MAHAPATRA.
(By Mr. AJAYAN T.V. ADV., A/W Mr. RAJESH CHANDER KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA NRUPATUNGA ROAD P.B. NO. 5470 BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
2. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED NO. 7, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE 560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
3. BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE MAIN BRANCH P.B. NO. 9985, NO. 11 KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE 560009 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
… PETITIONER 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 3RD FLOOR, B-BLOCK ABOVE BUS TERMINUS BMTC, SHANTINAGAR TTMC K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR BANGALROE 560027.
(By Mr. BIRDY AIYAPPA, CGC FOR R4 Mr. P.L. VIJAY KUMAR, ADV., FOR R3 Mr. NITIN PRASAD, ADV., FOR Mr. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADV., FOR R1 Mr. UNNIKRISHAN M, ADV., FOR R4) - - -
… RESPONDENTS This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 3.5.2016 at Annex-A passed by R-1 as being illegal and untenable in law. Direct R-1 to consider the applications for write off at Annex-F, H, J, T & U filed by the petitioner ofresh and to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before any decision in the matter & etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Ajayan T.V., learned counsel along with Sri.Rajesh Chander Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Birdy Aiyappa, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.4.
Sri.P.L.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Sri.Nitin Prasan, learned counsel for Sri.T.Suryanarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri.Unnikrishnan M., learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other such writ, order, or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, quashing the impugned order in FE.BG.EXD.No.9436/06.06.011/2015-
16 dated May 03, 2016 at Annexure A passed by respondent No.1 as being illegal and untenable in law.
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other similar writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directing the respondent No.1 to consider the applications for write off at Annexures F, H, J, T and U filed by the petitioner afresh and to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before any decision in the matter.
(C) to pass such other orders, directions and writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice, including the costs of this writ petition.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention and has invited the attention of this Court to the order impugned in this petition dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Reserve Bank of India, by which the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the order reflects application of mind and conveys the ground to the petitioner, on which the same has been rejected.
6. I have considered the submissions made on both sides. It is well settled in law that a quasi judicial authority is required to assign reasons for its conclusion in view of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK’, 2010 (3) SCC 732.
7. In view of the aforesaid well settled legal position, the facts of the case in hand may be seen. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:
“2. In this connection, you are advised that the proposal / request for write-off of export receivables cannot be acceded to in terms of Para C-19 of Master Directions dated January 01, 2016 on Export of Goods and Services.”
8. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it does not contain reasons but only the conclusions. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. The competent authority of the Reserve Bank of India is directed to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner afresh by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Needless to state that the ad interim order granted by a Bench of this Court shall continue till the consideration of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the petition.
Sd/- JUDGE RV