IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.9045 OF 2019 & WRIT PETITION NO.10011 OF 2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.LALITHA W/O SRI.PUTTAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI.R.PUTTAPPA REDDY S/O LATE R RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.153, III MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 076.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI.K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, (CREDIT & NPAMO, RBO-5, AO-2, NW-1, 4TH FLOOR, MYSORE BANK BUILDING, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009.
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BTM LAYOUT BRANCH (21377) N S PALYA, #457, PARAJIT NILAYAM, II MAIN, 7TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 076.
3. M/S.DREAMCITY REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.107, 1ST FLOOR, ABOVE SBI BANK, 80 FEET ROAD, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 076.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR C VIJAY ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.N.TULSI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 AND R1; NOTICE TO R3 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 12.03.2019.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO FURNISH THE NAMES OF THE OFFICIALS WHO HAVE RELEASED THE LOAN AMOUNT IMMEDIATELY TO THE R3 AND ALSO TAKE SUCH ACTION AGAINST THOSE OFFICIALS FOR VIOLATING THE RBI FUIDELINES FOR RELEASING THE AMOUNT IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.B.N.Tulsi Kumar, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.2 and respondent No.1.
2. These petitions are admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to furnish the names of the officials who have released the loan amount immediately to the 3rd respondent and also take such action against those officials for violating the RBI guidelines for releasing the amount immediately without looking into the progress of construction.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners vide Anneuxres H & L for rescheduling of the loan/concessional interest rate or one time settlement or for permitting the petitioners to complete the project on such terms and conditions to be revised by considering the representation made by the petitioners.
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the bank to initiate action against the 3rd respondent-Developer for misleading them by not providing additional collateral security and take such action against him for playing fraud against the Bank and the petitioners.”
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners be granted liberty to lodge a complaint against respondent No.3 and delinquent officers of the Bank, who have sanctioned loan illegally and fraudulently to respondent No.3 and the jurisdictional police be directed to take action on the complaint in accordance with law.
5. In view of aforesaid submission, Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate, who has been requested by this Court to appear in the matter submits that in case such a complaint is made, the jurisdictional police shall taken appropriate action in accordance with law in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.’, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
6. In view of aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners that in case, the petitioners file a complaint before the jurisdictional police against respondent No.3 and officers of Bank, the jurisdictional police as undertaken by Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate, shall deal with the matter in accordance with law expeditiously in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.’, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
7. Needless to state that the petitioners shall be at liberty to submit a fresh proposal with regard to the resettlement of the loan account or a representation to the respondent Bank, which shall be dealt with by the respondent Bank on its own merits.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-