M.SHIRIJHA Vs. OMBUDSMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings in RBI/CMS/N 202223023081250/2021 - 2022 dtd. 13/7/2022 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and direct disposal of the complaint given by the petitioner which was dtd. 15/6/2022.

(2.) The petitioner, while serving as Judicial Officer, had made an offer to the 2nd respondent to purchase initially Flat No.1, 2nd Floor, North Facing (West side), Nathans Aradhana Apartments, Old No.21, New No.7, Temple Avenue Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015, which was earlier mortgaged with the 2 nd respondent, on a private offer, on "as is where is" basis for a total sum of Rs.66,00,000.00. The petitioner had enclosed a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.6,60,000.00. The 2nd respondent had issued a reply on 19/10/2019 accepting the offer given by the petitioner, namely, the sale consideration of Rs.66,00,000.00. Thereafter, the petitioner found that there was yet another flat available for sale under the same condition, namely, No.T2, 3rd Floor, South Facing, Nathans Aradhana Apartments, Old No.21, New No.7, Temple Avenue Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015, which had also been earlier mortgaged with the 2nd respondent and which the 2nd respondent could not sell through e-auction. The offer for this was for a total consideration of Rs.75,00,000.00 and in addition to the earlier amount of Rs.6,60,000.00, the petitioner had paid a further amount of Rs.4,65,000.00, which indicated that the total advance amount given was Rs.11,25,000.00.

(3.) The acceptance for the offer was on 21/1/2020 by the 2nd respondent. Since this brings about a binding contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, consequent to the offer made, let me extract the entire letter dtd. 21/1/2020, which is as follows: