The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2017.
2.According to the petitioner, she had submitted a representation dated 30.01.2017 addressed to the first respondent requesting him to take action for return of jewels, which was auctioned illegally, and also take action against the erring bank officials, who have involved in a fraudulent activities.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on records.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the third respondent bank had auctioned the jewels on 15.12.2016, 21.12.2016 and 10.01.2017 without any notice or intimation to the petitioner and without following proper procedure as contemplated under the Rules. In this connection, the petitioner has made serious allegations against the erring officials of the third respondent alleging fraud while conducting auction in respect of the jewels in question, which according to the petitioner, was pledged with the bank for getting loan. The petitioner was, therefore, constrained to address the detailed representation to the first respondent on 30.01.2017 setting out the details of the alleged illegal action of the third respondent bank officials in auctioning the jewels in question. Since the said representation was not answered, she has approached this Court for the relief as stated supra.
5.What was requested in the representation that to return the jewels to the petitioner, which was auctioned illegally and also to take action against the erring bank officials, who have involved in the fraudulent transactions. Such a prayer cannot be sought in the writ petition for more than one reason. Firstly, there was no challenge to the auction by the petitioner and therefore, there cannot be any presumption by the petitioner that the auction was conducted illegally. Secondly, in the absence of any presumption in favour of the petitioner, the question of initiating action against any bank officials who involved in the auction does not arise. In the absence of challenge to the auction, the petitioner cannot maintain such a request, which is found in the representation dated 30.01.2017. The petitioner is indirectly trying to get the release of jewels through her representation, which cannot be granted in the absence of the challenge to the auction, under which, the jewels were sold. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
6.Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
To
1. The CGM and Secretary, Secretary's Department, Reserve Bank of India, 16th floor, Central Office Building, Mumbai ? 400 001.
2. The Secretary to the Southern Area Local Board, The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, 16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai- 600 001.
3. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Thirupathur Branch, Sivagangai District..