BIRENPODDAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are taken up together as they relate to same set of facts and points of law involved are the same.

(2.) The grievances of the petitioners in both the writ petitions are that the respondent No, 1 floated its share to general public as per the decision taken by the Government of India. In the month of December, 1993, the respondent No. 1 offered twelve crores forty lacs equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 90/- per share. Out of this, offer to general public was to the tune of Rs. 750 crores. Such public issue of the equity shares of the State Bank of India was opened on 15.12.1993 and closed on 24.12.1993. Extensive advertisements were made for wider circulation to the general public and in response to the same, the petitioners in both the writ petitions applied by filing separate and individual applications for allotment of 50 equity Snares by depositing cheque of Rs. 5,000/- each, details of which were given in Para-9 of the writ petitions. Respondent No. 3 M/s. Mas Services (Pvt.) Ltd. was appointed as Registrar to the Issues. Final allotment of the Equity Shares were made in consultation with the Security & Exchange Board of India and the Bombay Stock Exchange. There was overwhelming response to this public Issue and on 4.3.1994 it was published in Economic Times regarding the fixed basis of allotment of shares to the public.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioners that as decided by the Management, each and every applicants were to be allotted 50 Equity Shares on firm basis and the Press release was also made to that effect, but curiously enough although all the applicants of the petitions were found to be correct ana regular as per applications, they were not allotted Equity shares and letters were issued rejecting their applications. Petitioners then through their Advocate made representation but the said representation was not paid heed to. The sum and substance of the contention of the petitioners is that when their applications were received in regular way without any hindrance and were accepted by the Management of the State Bank of India then their applications cannot be rejected on any flimsy ground when the terms and conditions were very much there within the offer by the S.B.I. as contained in Annexure-3. When the representation of the petitioners were not attended to then CWJC No. 1499 of 1994(R) was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of by this Court on 24.8.1994 asking the Managing Director, of the respondent No. 1 to pass an order with reasons thereto on the representations taking into consideration the basis of allotment published in Economic Times within three weeks from the date of receipt of the Order. The copy of the Order is contained in Annexure-7. By Annexure-9, an order was passed by the Managing Director stating that already the application of the petitioners were rejected before the Patna High Court passed the order as mentioned above and that the applications of the petitioners were validly rejected as multiple. This Order has been challenged in these writ petitions.