Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 228 (ALL)

Prathama U. P. Gramin Bank v. Union of India

2022-02-21

AJAI TYAGI, KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking following relief : "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 01.04.2002 (Annexure-2) along with its execution Notice dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure-5) issued in Complaint No.80/1999 by the respondent no.2." 3. The compliant was filed in the year 1999 by the respondent no.2. The consequential effect goes to show that even after the judgment, the Consumer who has succeeded before the Commission is unable to get benefit of the judgment and decree for a small amount which was ordered by the Commission. The public bank as has rushed to this Court challenging the notice dated 24.05.2021 they could have very well appeared before the Commission. The Bank was the tenant. We are not going into the factual data at this stage, the petition lacks merit and bona fide. 4. The averments made in paragraph 7 cannot be gone into as the judgment of the Consumer/Conjugal Commission has attained finality. The petitioner had contested the litigation sum of Rs.1,01,145/- with interest @ 15% was ordered to be paid. The appeal was preferred before the State Consumer Redresssal Dispute Commission U.P. Lucknow. The State Consumer Redressal Dispute Commission, U.P. Lucknow rejected the appeal of the petitioner bank in the year 2018. The appeal was never filed before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission even till date. The petitioner bank by way of a Gazette Notification No. 853 dated 22.02.2019 issued by the Government of India, the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank came in force on 01.04.2019, on account of Amalgamation of erstwhile Sarva U.P. Vihar District-Moradabad. The petitioner bank states that they did not challenge the order dated 15.02.2018 because of Pandemic. The Pandemic said to be only in March, 2020. The amalgamation took place in the year 2019 that one full year but no such endeavors were made. The petition is also belated. The order of the Consumer Commission cannot be brought to challenge by way of seeking a writ of certiorari. The petition was filed without disclosing the date on which the matter was fixed on 30th July as the petition came to be filed on 16th August, 2021. 5. The petition is also belated. The order of the Consumer Commission cannot be brought to challenge by way of seeking a writ of certiorari. The petition was filed without disclosing the date on which the matter was fixed on 30th July as the petition came to be filed on 16th August, 2021. 5. In that view of the matter, we have no other option but to dismiss the petition with no costs. The R.B.I. guidelines would not help the petitioner in this end in filing this writ petition. The order dated 01.04.2002 and the orders in appeal are very clear and categorical despite that the litigants cannot ripe the fruit of the decree passed by both the competent authorities which has attained the finality. We cannot go into the findings of the appellate authority, namely, The Consumer Dispute Redresssal Commission. 6. The petition lacks merit and is delayed. The appeal also has not been satisfactorily explained, however, we do not go in the same. 7. It is very clear that petitioner bank has challenged the issuance of notice issued by the State Consumer Redressal Dispute Commission, U.P. Lucknow. We have conveyed to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition against the issuance of notice by the Consumer Commission cannot be entertained and they should appear before the Commission and raised all objections but the learned counsel has conveyed that he has instructions to press the petition on the merits for the grounds which are alleged in the petition. 8. The ground taken, are as follows:- "(a) During the period of running the term loan account of respondent no.3 and 4 even till its final payment made by the respondent no.3 and 4 never raised any dispute regarding interest, but without any reference to the petitioner bank had raised consumer complaint before the respondent no.2 against the petitioner bank and had claimed refund of interest amount @ 18% along with damages and cost etc. (b) The complaint No.80/1999 was filed by the Respondent no.3 and 4 before the respondent no.2 and the same was contested by the petitioner bank, as the same was not maintainable and bank had charged interest upon the term loan as per agreed terms settled between the parties in terms of loan agreement, furthermore the interest charged upon the term loan of respondent no.3 and 4 was as per the R.B.I. guidelines. (c) The respondent no.2 entertained the complaint of the respondent no.3 and 4 and after hearing the counsel for the parties directed to the bank to pay the amount of interest to the tune of Rs.1,01,145.00 along with interest @15% since November, 1995, within a period of 30 days vide its order dated 01.04.2002. (d) Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.04.2002 passed by the respondent no.2 the petitioner bank preferred an appeal bearing No.1016/2002 in the name and style of Prathama Bank (Through Chairman) Head Office Moradabad and another Vs. Smt. Pramila Gupta & Others; before the State Consumer Redressal Dispute Commission U.P. Lucknow. (e) The State Consumer Redressal Dispute Commission U.P. Lucknow, was failed to appreciate the contentions of the bank and rejected the Appeal of the petitioner bank vide order dated 13.02.2018. (f) The respondent no.3 and 4 filed an execution application on 12.02.2021 under Section 72(1) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in Complaint Case No.80/1999 before the respondent no.s, in which the respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice dated 24.05.2021 which received to the bank on 28.05.2021, fixing therein a date of 7th June, 2021. (g) The respondent no.2 upon the date fixed on 7th June, 2021 but the learned forum was vacant as such further a date on 16th August, 2021 is fixed for further hearing." 9. This is nothing else but the abuse of process of the Court and, therefore, also we are obliged to follow the mandate of the Apex Court in N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC (Civ.) 555. 10. Thus, even in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771 , will not permit us to exercise our jurisdiction. 11. As there is full mechanism available, the petitioner has chosen after three years to come before this Court challenging the order date 24.05.2021 in spite of contesting the execution proceedings. 12. In this case, the Consumer Commission dismissed the appeal. The litigation is since 1999, the recent anguish shown by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chinnamuthu (Dead) Vs. 12. In this case, the Consumer Commission dismissed the appeal. The litigation is since 1999, the recent anguish shown by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Chinnamuthu (Dead) Vs. Kamaleshan @ Shanmugam (Dead) Through LRS reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209, we also while dictating this judgment feel that here is a case where M.I.T. Bank is not even going before the Commission and rushes to the High Court and the man without the fruits of the decree of the Consumer Forum upheld by the U.P. State Consumer Commission, hence, we dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- which is minimal for the bank, to be deposited with the Registry of the High Court within two weeks, which should be transferred to the Legal Services Authority for betterment of the downtrodden people. 13. This petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.