ANIL KUMAR Vs. CHIEF MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 to the petitioner as the same was illegally reversed from the petitioner's bank account. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to lift the lien marked on the amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 transferred in the bank account of the petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s Bhanu Construction and its sister concern M/s UTS Infratel Pvt. Ltd. being regular customer of the petitioner's firm namely, M/s ANICOMP had been placing orders to it from time to time for supply of computers, accessories and other allied items as per its requirement and accordingly the petitioner's firm used to supply the said materials raising the bills for such supply. M/s Bhanu Construction as well as its sister concern M/s UTS Infratel Pvt. Ltd. used to transfer the amount of bills in the petitioner's bank account opened in Bank of India, Church Road Branch, Ranchi. In the month of August 2017, M/s Bhanu Construction and its sister concern received the goods worth Rs.25,32,670.00 and M/s Bhanu Construction transferred a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 in the petitioner's account on 16/8/2017 towards payment for the same. However, on 20/9/2017, the petitioner received a call from one Mr. Sameer Khalkho, Senior Manager, Bank of India, Church Road Branch, Ranchi alleging that a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00was transferred in the petitioner's account in an unauthorized manner. At that time, the petitioner was in Kolkata, hence he requested the said officer of Bank of India to wait till he gets back to Ranchi in order to ascertain the actual fact. Despite the said request, the respondent no. 1 reversed a sum of Rs.25,00,000.00 from the account of the petitioner. The petitioner visited the said Branch and also filed an online complaint with the respondent no. 1 who, on 4/10/2017 replied that after receipt of a letter from SBI, Hatia Branch, he tried to contact the petitioner on 20/9/2017, but he could not be contacted and since the petitioner's complaint dtd. 23/9/2017 was received by the branch on 27/9/2017, the amount was already reversed after discussion with the officials of SBI, Hatia Branch on their visit to the Church Road Branch of the Bank of India. An online complaint lodged by the petitioner was also closed by the respondent no. 1 on the ground that the reversal was already done on the request of SBI, Hatia Branch. The petitioner again wrote letters dtd. 5/10/2017 and 6/10/2017 to the respondent no. 1 and provided complete details of the said transfer of amount to his bank account stating that there used to be regular transactions with the said customers i.e., M/s Bhanu Construction and its sister concern M/s UTS Infratel Pvt. Ltd, however, no step whatsoever was taken by the respondent no. 1 for redressal of the said grievance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent no. 2 on 25/10/2017, however, in the meantime, the respondent no. 1 forwarded a letter written by A.G.M., SBI, Hatia Branch, Dhurwa to him suggesting that the reversed money should be taken from M/s Bhanu Construction and their partners namely, Sanjay Tiwari @ Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and Suresh Kumar as the money transferred in the petitioner's bank account by the said partnership firm was part of Rs.100.01 crores of public fund mistakenly transferred to the account of the said partnership firm, which had siphoned off the said amount. The petitioner also tried to contact the said firm, but he was told that the dues of the petitioner had already been paid and thus it was not liable if the respondent no. 1 had reversed the amount from his bank account. The respondent no. 1 then requested SBI, Hatia Branch vide email dtd. 23/11/2017 (a copy of which was also forwarded to the petitioner) to refund the said amount which clearly suggests that the respondent no. 1 had realized his mistake in reversing the amount of Rs.25,00,000.00. Thereafter, the petitioner was eagerly waiting for redressal of his complaint by the respondent no. 2 on sending reminders dtd. 29/11/2017 and 14/12/2017, however he got information under the Right to Information Act (RTI) from the respondent no. 2 that there was no citizen charter for handling the cases by the Banking Ombudsman and that there was no time frame under Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 for resolution of complaints. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 vide letter dtd. 26/3/2018 informed the petitioner that as per the input of the respondent no. 1, M/s Bhanu Construction had transferred the amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 in the petitioner's account which was part of the public fund of Rs.100.01 crores and since SBI had started recovery proceedings against M/s Bhanu Construction before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi, it was decided to close the petitioner's complaint. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 on 22/4/2018, however, no decision was taken on same. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that closure of the petitioner's complaint by the respondent no. 2 was not proper as no complaint concerning the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi or any other court. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent no. 1 in reversing the amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 from the petitioner's account without his permission or of any other competent authority is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has been discriminated inasmuch as other banks situated at Ranchi including Axis Bank/HDFC Bank had refused to reverse similar transaction from those bank accounts which had received fund from the account of M/s Bhanu Construction on the ground that permission of competent authority was required for such reversal order. However, the respondent no. 1 acted on request of the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch and debited the said amount from the bank account of the petitioner's firm (ANICOMP) without any order of the competent authority or without consent of the petitioner. The ground on which the petitioner's complaint was rejected by the respondent no. 2 was not in consonance with the provisions of Clause 13(b) read with 9(3)(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. It is also submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 to represent the matter, who did not only close the petitioner's complaint without any legal ground but also took belated unilateral decision based on the submission of the respondent no. 1.