Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10611 of 2021 Petitioner :- Rohit Jawa Respondent :- Reserve Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yash Tandon,Avadhesh Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter taken up through video conferencing.
Petitioner by way of present petition seeks quashment of a communication dated 05.03.2021 and a direction to the Respondent Bank to de-freeze the account. The communication is brought on record which is in the following term:-
"The Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (BOS-2006) Complaint No : 202021011018536 dated against KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.
We thank you for your complaint No. 202021011018536 In response to our advisory bank has submitted following documents: 1: Legal notice dated 25.10.2020 issued by complainant's advocate for unfreezing of account. 2. In response to bank's query, letter from MOEA, stating that maximum period for validity of passport is 10 years, 3. Copy of ED notice dated 30.12.2020 requesting BM to submit documents related with account of complainant Mr Rohit Jawa, 4. ED notice dated 4.12.2020 in r/o inquiry against Rohit Jawa under FEMA 2002, 5. Police complaint dated 20.11.2020 in respect of forgery in complainant's passport.
Observation: After study of above documents following facts were observed: In case of KYC documents complainant had submitted copy of passport valid from 2008 to 2028 which were raised doubt and bank has obtained maximum period of passport validity form passport issuing authority which was maximum for 10 years only.
Notices from ED dated 4.12.2020 was received by the bank regarding inquiry against Rohit Jawa under FEMA 2002 and asking for some documents. Notice from ED 30.12.2020 to bank asking for some additional documents.
BO Decision: Forgery of passport is the reason for freeze in accounts. ED has initiated investigations. (Various evidence attached) May be closed u/cl 13.1.a.
In this connection it is advised that we have examined the same and reject the same under Clause : 13 (1) (a)-Clause 13 1.a not on the grounds of complaint referred to in clause 8; of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006."
Evident it is from the communication that it is because of the forgery of passport and initiation of an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate has resulted in freezing of the account. The petitioner for the reason best known to him has not disclosed these facts in the petition rather concealed these facts.
In view whereof, we are not inclined to entertain the petition where the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. consequently, petition fails and is dismissed.
However, in the present case, we refrain from imposing the cost on the petitioner and expect that the petitioner in future while filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution shall disclose all the relevant facts.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of petition with liberty to file fresh petition with fresh documents.
As we have held that the petition is not entertainable for the reason supra, we decline the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal of petition and filing of fresh petition.
Needless to say, in case the petitioner has remedy in respect of action taken by the Enforcement Directorate, he is always at liberty to avail the same under law before appropriate forum.
No costs.
Order Date :- 4.5.2021 Kirti (Ajay Bhanot, J) (Sanjay Yadav, ACJ)