MANIK DHAR Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned publication dtd. 19/6/2019 by the respondent Bank published in the local dailies on 21/6/2019 whereby the name and photograph of the petitioner was published declaring him as a 'wilful defaulter'. The fact of the case, as can be derived from the materials on record is that, in the year 2002, the petitioner had applied for credit facilities from the respondent Bank under the fund-based account namely Term Loan and working Capital Term Loan account with varying limits for setting up a Brick Kiln Unit at Dharmanagar, Tripura. On 28/9/2002 the respondent Bank sanctioned the credit facilities in favour of the petitioner on terms and conditions contained in the sanction letter. The credit facilities granted were enhanced from time to time by the respondent Bank. As the petitioner failed to repay the respondent Bank, his loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 1/7/2004. Thereafter, the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceeding against the petitioner. In addition, the respondent Bank vide publication dtd. 19/6/2019, published the name and photograph of the petitioner in the local dailies on 21/6/2019 declaring him as a wilful defaulter. Being aggrieved by the publication made by the respondent Bank, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. K. Paul, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned publication was made by the respondent Bank by resorting to abuse of power and in complete violation of the mandatory guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide Master Circular on Wilful Defaulters dtd. 1/7/2015. He submits that the photograph of the petitioner could not have been published by the respondent Bank by terming him as a wilful defaulter without following the binding instructions laid down in clause 2.1.3 and clause 3 of the said guidelines. He submits that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was not afforded with any opportunity by the respondent Bank before the impugned publication was made. He contends that the guidelines dtd. 1/7/2015 of the RBI has statutory force by virtue of provision of Sec. 35A of The Banking Regulation Act 1949 and the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 10 SCC 274, Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. Reserve Bank of India and hence, the respondent Bank could not have ignored the guidelines while taking a decision on the impugned publication. The learned Senior counsel submits that there is a deliberate attempt by the respondent Bank to mislead the Court inasmuch on the one hand, at para 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that notice was issued to the petitioner but the same could not be retrieved or recovered, whereas on the other hand, at para 18 it is affirmed that the statements made at para 12 are true to the information derived from official records. He further contends that failure of the respondent Bank to produce the related official record despite the order of this court would go to show that no procedure as mandated by the guideline dtd. 1/7/2015 was ever followed by the respondent Bank in the matter and prays for quashing of the impugned publication made by the respondent Bank.

(3.) Ms. T. Yangi B, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. R. Gurung, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter in the payment of outstanding dues in his Loan Account and the loan became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). She submits that since a publication has been made terming the petitioner as a wilful defaulter, there is a presumption that all the necessary procedures were followed before the publication was made. She further submits that inspite of sincere efforts, the related official record could not be placed before this Court and prays for taking of a lenient view of the matter considering the fact that the respondent Bank is a large establishment having number of branches throughout the country and the difficulty in maintaining large number of files in proper order. She further submits that no vested right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondent Bank and there is no occurrence of any miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. She submits that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.