Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 484 (PAT)

State Bank Of India v. State Of Bihar

2012-03-20

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2012
ORDER Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding relating to Complaint Case No.1508 of 2009 pending before the Bihar Human Rights Commission as the issue raised in the aforesaid complaint is beyond the purview of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. 3. The petitioner no.1 is a Nationalized Bank and statutory body having its local Head Office at West Gandhi Maidan, Patna and petitioner no.2 is the Branch Manager of Gopalpur Branch of State Bank of India (in short ‘S.B.I.’). 4. The facts of the case in brief is that respondent no.3 filed a complaint before the Bihar Human Rights Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) on 25.8.2009 which was registered as Complaint No.1508/2009 wherein it has been alleged that petitioner no.2 rejected his application for grant of loan under Diary Plus Scheme and as well as for tractor due to non-payment of illegal gratification. 5. The petitioners state that respondent no.3 applied for three loans and one of the loans in respect of Kisan Credit Card Scheme was sanctioned within five days of the filing of the application. The loan under Diary Plus Scheme and for Tractor was refused on different grounds which have been briefly stated in paragraph 11 of the written statement filed by the petitioners before the Commission. The petitioners stated that they have also raised issue of maintainability specifically before the Commission which would be evident from perusal of paragraphs 19 and 20 of the written statement filed by them before the Commission. 6. The petitioners submit that human rights has been defined under section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 to mean the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Sub-section (5) of section 21 Act states that the Human Rights Commission can enquire into violation of Human Rights only in respect of matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II and III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and banking is enumerated at item no.45 of List I i.e. the Union List. 7. Mr. Sub-section (5) of section 21 Act states that the Human Rights Commission can enquire into violation of Human Rights only in respect of matters relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II and III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and banking is enumerated at item no.45 of List I i.e. the Union List. 7. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the Commission can dispose of the issue of maintainability within the time limit framed by this court in which both the parties would cooperate. 8. It appears that the petitioners have raised the issue of maintainability before the Commission in paragraphs 19 and 20 of their written statement and have made serious challenge to the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain complaint against refusal to grant loan even on alleged ground of extraneous considerations. While strongly denying allegation of seeking illegal gratification for grant of loan, the petitioners submit that no such loan under Diary Plus Scheme has been sanctioned in the area. 9. As the jurisdiction of the Commission to entertain such complaint is challenged while by making reference to constitutional provisions and the Act, 1993, it would be appropriate that the learned Commission decide the issue of maintainability as the preliminary and first issue. It would be open for the parties to represent their case either in person or through representatives or their counsels. The learned Commission would decide the issue of maintainability expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. It goes without saying that either of the parties, if aggrieved by the order of the learned Commission would be at liberty to challenge the same. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Commission through fax at the cost of the petitioners.