RAJAN SHRIVALLABHA DESHPANDE Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the action of his de-empanelment by respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda vide communication dtd. 16/12/2019. A challenge is also raised to the show-cause notice dtd. 22/7/2020 as having been issued with premeditation.

(2.) The petitioner is a registered legal practitioner since 16/9/1980. He is member of Akola Bar Association and practicing at Akola District Court. He had represented various institutions such as Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, as a Special Counsel for Municipal Corporation, Akola and various educational institutions and nationalized and co-operative Banks. As per the contention of the petitioner he was on the panel of Advocates of respondent No.1-Bank of Baroda under the control of regional office Nagpur since more than 30 years.

(3.) In the year 2012, the petitioner was asked by Bank of Baroda, Branch at Jalna for title report (search report) in respect of property belonging to M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Limited. The petitioner was asked to submit search report of Nazul Plot No.6/3, Sheet No.26-D, situated in the area known as Mangaldas Market, Akola, Taluka and District Akola, admeasuring area 1702 sq.ft. along with building constructed thereon. Accordingly, he had perused the documents supplied to him by the Bank and carried the requisite search at the office of Sub-Registrar, Akola of 30 years. The petitioner had submitted the title report on 11/5/2012. As per the contention of the petitioner he had prepared said title report with utmost care and by due diligence by safeguarding the interest of the Bank. But suddenly on 21/12/2019 he had received a communication dtd. 16/12/2019 by which it was intimated to him that his name was removed from the list of Bank 's Panel Advocates. As per the contention of the petitioner the action of de-empanelment is completely stigmatic and arbitrary. His name was removed from the panel of Advocates by the Bank on an allegation that the search report submitted by him was not undertaken with due diligence. The petitioner had returned the remaining work of Bank. It is further contended by the petitioner that the Bank did not afford any opportunity of justification to him. The action of the Bank was against the settled principles of natural justice. He had submitted the reply to the said communication on 10/1/2020. He had explained that the Property Card dtd. 27/12/2019 nowhere reflected that M/s. Krishidhan Seeds Limited had sold any portion of property to some other persons. During the inspection of the Index-II register also nowhere it revealed that any sale transaction had taken place. There was absolutely no negligence on his part while issuing search report. He had received a show cause notice on 22/7/2020 as to why his name should not be referred to IBA for adding it in Caution List on the ground that on account of his gross negligence in providing a wrong title search report, fraud was committed by the borrower. The Bank had also issued notice to his son, who is practicing Advocate though he was not on the panel of Bank. The petitioner had replied the said show cause notice on 25/8/2020. As per contention of the petitioner entire action of the Bank is stigmatic, arbitrary and liable to be quashed. It has maligned the reputation of the petitioner.