JUDGMENT : S. MANU, J. 1. The sole proprietress of Cochin Frozen Foods filed this writ petition on behalf of the proprietorship concern challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the 1st respondent Ombudsman. During the pendency of the writ petition she expired and her husband got substituted as supplemental petitioner to represent the proprietorship concern. 2. The contentions raised in the writ petition are as follows: The Cochin Frozen Foods is engaged in the business of exporting marine products to various foreign countries. The sole proprietress of Cochin Frozen Foods is a Director of the additional 4th respondent company, Cochin Frozen Food Exports Private Limited (hereafter referred as “company”). The petitioner, Cochin Frozen Foods used to have business with an Iranian company. An amount of Rs. 1,05,20,850/- was transferred to the UCO Bank to be paid to the petitioner on account a of shipment of frozen yellow fin tuna fish to the Iranian company. The petitioner was informed by the 2nd respondent, UCO Bank, Treasury Branch, Mumbai through a letter addressed to the company with the enclosure addressed to the petitioner firm that the payment was received by them. Communication by the UCO Bank is produced as Ext.P1. When the payment due to the petitioner was not effected by the Bank, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Chief Manager, UCO Bank, MG Road, Ernakulam. Later, the banker of the petitioner, the Federal Bank also issued a communication to the UCO Bank for release of payment. The Federal Bank was informed by the UCO Bank that the Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd., the additional 4th respondent had received advance remittance from an Iranian company against their export and it has not refunded Rs. 8,27,836/- being the excess advance payment/balance left over. Until and unless the matter is settled, UCO Bank cannot release the amount received from the Iranian Commercial Bank to the petitioner. According to the additional 4th respondent company, the said dealing was settled much earlier. However on account of the compulsion to get the huge amount released, the petitioner was forced to remit an amount of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the company’s account with UCO Bank, M.G Road Branch Ernakulam under advice to its Mumbai Treasury Branch and only thereafter the amount of Rs. 1,05,20,850/- was released to the petitioner. However on account of the compulsion to get the huge amount released, the petitioner was forced to remit an amount of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the company’s account with UCO Bank, M.G Road Branch Ernakulam under advice to its Mumbai Treasury Branch and only thereafter the amount of Rs. 1,05,20,850/- was released to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and the 4th respondent company are two different legal entities and the petitioner has no account maintained with the UCO Bank. Hence the withholding of the amount due to the petitioner alleging that amounts were due from the company was unfair and illegal. The petitioner suffered loss due to the delay in releasing the payment and also on account of remittance of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the account of the company, under coercion. 3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the Banking Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram. The Banking Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram, vide Ext P4, suggested the petitioner to prefer complaint to the Banking Ombudsman within whose jurisdiction, branch or office of the bank against which the complaint is filed is situated. Ext.P3 complaint was forwarded to the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Mumbai by the Ombudsman at Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter the petitioner approached the 1st respondent Ombudsman. Ext.P5 is the complaint filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. 4. The 1st respondent, forwarded Ext.P5 to the UCO Bank, obtained their response and thenceforth closed the complaint. Ext.P8 is the communication issued by the 1st respondent Ombudsman to the petitioner conveying the decision. The said decision of the Ombudsman is under challenge in this writ petition as stated at the outset. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition reveals a clear case of misappropriation by a banking institution, deficiency in service, delay in making payment causing huge loss and agony, unfair banking practice etc. The Banking Ombudsman however closed the complaint without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel points out that the Banking Ombudsman has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and disposed her complaint accepting the version of the Bank. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to rebut the assertions of the Bank. It is also argued that reasons for rejection of the complaint are not understandably stated in Ext.P8. The learned counsel points out that the Banking Ombudsman has not provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and disposed her complaint accepting the version of the Bank. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to rebut the assertions of the Bank. It is also argued that reasons for rejection of the complaint are not understandably stated in Ext.P8. He further submits that the 1st respondent Ombudsman has not acted in accordance with the objectives of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, thus, frustrating the remedy available to the petitioner. He prayed to set aside Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent Ombudsman and that the 3rd respondent be directed to return the amount of Rs. 8,27,836/- paid under compulsion by the petitioner towards the account of the 4th respondent company with interest at 12% per annum from 25.4.2016. 6. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the UCO Bank has justified the action taken by it. It submitted that there was an outstanding balance to the tune of Rs. 8,27,836/- payable to the buyer at Iran. The petitioner as well as the additional 4th respondent company are not totally different entities and if the corporate veil is lifted, they are one and the same. The transaction between the petitioner and the Bank is governed by Foreign Exchange management (Export of goods and services) regulations 2015. The Bank has acted only in accordance with the Master Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, since the exporter company had not repaid the excess advance amount within the period of one year. The Foreign Exchange Department of the RBI has to approve refund. It is further stated that the RBI has approved refund to the tune of Rs. 4,15,586/- only. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that all relevant aspects have been stated in Ext.P9 objection filed by the Bank before the Ombudsman and the allegation against the Bank that it has illegally/improperly withheld the amount is incorrect. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Ombudsman and Ext.P8 order/communication issued by the Ombudsman, approving the contentions of the Bank is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. The additional 4th respondent company also filed a counter affidavit. 7. The additional 4th respondent company also filed a counter affidavit. The additional 4th respondent supports the contention of the petitioner that the proprietary concern and the 4th respondent company are two different legal entities and the UCO Bank was not justified in withholding of amounts due to the proprietorship concern against the account/transactions of the 4th respondent company. It further submits that the case of the Bank regarding excess advance is unsustainable as the company had already settled the same. 8. The reason for closing the complaint has been stated in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8. The said paragraph is extracted below: “2. In this connection, bank’s comments were sought and your complaint is scrutinized along with the comments dated October 26, 2016 submitted by bank (Copy enclosed). It is observed that INR 8,27,836/- is still lying in the account of M/s Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. for want of completion of formalities/submission of relevant documents required for outward remittance. The bank has explained the matter adequately. In view of the above, your complaint is closed under Clause 13 (a) read with 13(b) of the BOS- 2006, which states that “the Banking Ombudsman may reject a complaint at any stage if it appears to him that the complaint is not on the grounds of complaint referred to in Clause 8 or otherwise not in accordance with Sub Clause (3) of Clause 9.” 9. From the above, it appears that reason for closing the complaint as stated, is that the same is not made on any of the grounds available in Clause 8, and/or the fault on the part of the complainant is that the complaint was not submitted in accordance with sub-clause (3) of Clause 9. No further reasons are given. The complainant is in fact left to wonder whether the complaint was not on the grounds referred to in Clause 8 or whether the complaint was not satisfying the requirements under sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 or both. 10. The Ombudsman, on receipt of Ext.P5 complaint, seems to have called for the response of the 2nd respondent. Perusal of Ext.P9 submitted by the Bank shows that it virtually admitted that the amount due to the petitioner was released only after receiving payment of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the account of the 4th respondent company. 10. The Ombudsman, on receipt of Ext.P5 complaint, seems to have called for the response of the 2nd respondent. Perusal of Ext.P9 submitted by the Bank shows that it virtually admitted that the amount due to the petitioner was released only after receiving payment of Rs. 8,27,836/- in the account of the 4th respondent company. The Bank has not addressed the specific contention of the petitioner that the petitioner and the 4th respondent company are two different legal entities and therefore withholding of the amount due to the petitioner and demanding the petitioner to remit the amount allegedly due from the 4th respondent company is improper. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman after reading Ext.P9, without holding any further inquiry, closed the complaint by Ext.P8 and did not convey the reasons for arriving at the conclusions extracted supra. 11. Reliable and resilient banking system is essential for the growth and economic stability of any country. Consumers availing banking facilities must have an expeditious, inexpensive and efficacious grievance redressal mechanism. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 was notified by the Reserve Bank of India on 14.6.1995 under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to resolve complaints from the customers against banks. The object of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 was to enable resolution of complaints relating to provision of banking services and to facilitate the satisfaction, or settlement of such complaints. The scheme was revised in the year 2002 enlarging its scope by amending the object to the scheme. The object of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002 is as follows: “(1) Enabling resolution of complaints relating to provision of banking services and to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints. (2) Resolving disputes between a bank and its constituent as well as between one bank and another bank through the process of conciliation, mediation and arbitration.” 12. Thereafter, in 2006 another important amendment to the scheme was made by the Reserve Bank of India. The object of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 as stated in it is as follows: “The Scheme is introduced with the object of enabling resolution of complaints relating to certain services rendered by banks and to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints.” The said scheme, as amended again, was in force when Ext P8 was issued. Later, many more modifications were brought to the scheme and currently an integrated scheme introduced in 2021 is in force. Later, many more modifications were brought to the scheme and currently an integrated scheme introduced in 2021 is in force. However the basic features of the scheme have not underwent any major changes. 13. In Durga Hotel Complex vs. Reserve Bank of India, (2007) 5 SCC 120 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows about the institution of Ombudsman: “Conceptually, an Ombudsman is only a non-adversarial adjudicator of disputes. An Ombudsman by definition is only an official appointed to receive, investigate, and report on private citizen’s complaints about the government, a similar appointee in a non-governmental organisation (such as a company or university). (See Black’s Law Dictionary). He serves as an alternative to the adversary system for resolving disputes, especially between citizens and government agencies. He is an independent and non-partisan officer who deals with specific complaints from the public against the administrative injustice and mal-administration. (See 4 American Jurisprudence 2d). Therefore, by its very nature, an Ombudsman is an alternative to an adversary system for resolution of disputes.” 14. A close reading of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme shows that it has been framed as a detailed code providing for the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, grounds on which complaint can be entertained, power of the Ombudsman to reject complaints on account of non-maintainability, power to call for information, power to promote settlement, power to consider the complaint by examining evidence and providing opportunities to the parties to present their case, to pass award, etc. Analysis of the provisions of the scheme reveals that the institution of Banking Ombudsman, unquestionably has been conceived of as a quasi judicial authority. I find support for the said conclusion in Fidelity Finance Ltd. vs. Banking Ombudsman, (2002) SCC Online Madras 864 and M.B. Power (Madhya Pradesh) Ltd. vs. Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India and Another, 2023 SCC Online Del. 6790. 15. It is trite law that every quasi judicial authority shall adhere to the principles of natural justice and give reasons for the decisions taken. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 undertook an elaborate survey of precedents related to exercising of quasi judicial functions. After referring to principles laid down in various precedents, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the discussions in paragraph 51, as follows: “51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Others, (2010) 9 SCC 496 undertook an elaborate survey of precedents related to exercising of quasi judicial functions. After referring to principles laid down in various precedents, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the discussions in paragraph 51, as follows: “51. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 Para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.” (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “Due Process.” The Banking Ombudsman being a quasi judicial authority vested with the power to decide disputes between the consumers and banks is undoubtedly bound by the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, extracted above. 16. It therefore emerges that the Banking Ombudsman is a quasi judicial authority obliged to act fairly, following the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Scheme. When a complaint is submitted the Ombudsman is expected to apply his mind to the averments in the complaint and the grievance raised and to find out whether the complaint can be entertained under the provisions of the scheme. The 2006 scheme as also the integrated scheme now in force empowers the Ombudsman to reject the complaint for certain grounds specifically stated therein. However, the said power cannot be exercised by the Ombudsman in an arbitrary fashion without application of mind. When the Ombudsman rejects a complaint falling within the scope of the scheme, depicting it as not, without proper application of mind, the result would be travesty of justice. However, the said power cannot be exercised by the Ombudsman in an arbitrary fashion without application of mind. When the Ombudsman rejects a complaint falling within the scope of the scheme, depicting it as not, without proper application of mind, the result would be travesty of justice. In case the grievance pointed out in the complaint clearly falls within any of the grounds mentioned in the relevant clause enabling rejection, the Ombudsman can definitely reject the complaint. However, being a quasi-judicial authority the Ombudsman has to state the reasons for his conclusion at least briefly. The complainant who is eagerly waiting for resolution of his grievance shall be in a position to understand why his complaint has been rejected. It is undoubtedly an essential requirement to state reasons for every decision taken by a quasi judicial authority. Absence of reasons give rise to dissatisfaction, uncertainty and defeats the cause of justice. I do not forget that the inquiry by the Ombudsman is summary in nature. Therefore, the Ombudsman may not be required to give elaborate reasons like the courts of law. However, a brief statement of reasons shall be given by the Ombudsman even when a complaint is rejected invoking the power to reject complaints for specific reasons provided under the scheme. 17. On perusal of Ext.P8, I find that the reasons have been stated in a very cryptic manner. It is not discernible as to how the Ombudsman arrived at the conclusion that the complaint is not in accordance with Clause 8 or sub-clause (3) of Clause 9. A mere assertion that the complaint will not fall within the scope of the said provisions is not enough. Reasons for arriving at the said conclusion shall be stated at least briefly. Otherwise the very purpose of the summary adjudicatory process entrusted with the Ombudsman will be defeated. Clause 12 (3) of the 2006 scheme specifically insists that the award shall state briefly, the reasons for passing the award. The said requirement cannot be totally dispensed with also when the Ombudsman closes/rejects a complaint, since the same is a mandatory requirement of procedural fairness. 18. Clause 12 (3) of the 2006 scheme specifically insists that the award shall state briefly, the reasons for passing the award. The said requirement cannot be totally dispensed with also when the Ombudsman closes/rejects a complaint, since the same is a mandatory requirement of procedural fairness. 18. I note that a learned Single judge of this Court in M.M. Kunjumon and Another vs. Reserve Bank of India, 2023 SCC Online Kerala 7608 quashed an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman holding that the Ombudsman ought to have adjudicated the issues raised by the petitioners and should have given valid reasons while deciding the complaint. The Ombudsman was directed to pass a reasoned order touching upon the various contentions raised by both sides. 19. Perusal of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 which was prevailing while Ext.P8 order was issued by the Banking Ombudsman shows that the manner in which the inquiry is to be conducted by the Banking Ombudsman is provided in Clause 12. The relevant extract of the said provision is as follows: “12. AWARD BY THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN: (1) If a complaint is not settled by agreement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the complaint or such further period as the Banking Ombudsman may allow the parties, he may, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, pass an Award or reject the complaint. (2) The Banking Ombudsman shall take into account the evidence placed before him by the parties, the principles of banking law and practice, directions, instructions and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank from time to time and such other factors which in his opinion are relevant to the complaint. (3) The award shall state briefly the reasons for passing the award. (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) xxx xxx xxx (7) xxx xxx xxx (8) xxx xxx xxx (9) xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis added) Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 12 provides that, if the complaint is not settled by agreement as provided under Clause 11 the Banking Ombudsman may allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case before passing the award or rejecting the complaint. Sub-Clause (2) shows that the Ombudsman has to take into account the evidence placed before him by the parties as well as principles of banking law, directions/instructions/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and such other relevant factors. Hence, it is clear that the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 contemplated providing of opportunity to present their case to the parties and the same can be understood only as opportunity of hearing. It is relevant to note that the right of hearing is clearly provided in Clause 15 (1) (b) of the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021. Above all, right of hearing is a cardinal requirement of natural justice and procedural fairness. The same cannot be omitted by the Banking Ombudsman, a quasi judicial authority, when complaints are examined on merits. 20. In Parameswaran Pillai vs. Banking Ombudsman, 1999 (3) KLT 831 a Division Bench of this Court considered the provisions of Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995. In the said case a complaint was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman stating that the grievance raised was outside the purview of the 1995 Scheme. The issue in the said case was regarding sanctioning/enhancement of credit limits. The Hon’ble Division Bench agreed with the reasoning of the Ombudsman that the grievance raised in the said case was outside the purview of the matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The rejection on the ground of admissibility was hence upheld and it was observed that “the Banking Ombudsman Scheme does not also envisage any hearing before a decision in the nature of that contained in Ext.P6” (emphasis added). The said observation of the Hon’ble Division Bench was made in the context of the case considered. The Division Bench has not laid down that the Scheme does not envisage hearing at all. The Division Bench only observed that to take a decision in the nature of that contained in Ext.P6 (regarding admissibility of the complaint) hearing was not envisaged. The Division Bench did not lay down any general proposition regarding the right of hearing under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme. As already noted, the specific provision in Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 12 of the 2006 Scheme and also Clause 15(1) (b) of the integrated Scheme of 2021 provides for hearing. Hence the Ombudsman is bound to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties while examining complaints on merits. 21. As already noted, the specific provision in Sub-Clause (1) of Clause 12 of the 2006 Scheme and also Clause 15(1) (b) of the integrated Scheme of 2021 provides for hearing. Hence the Ombudsman is bound to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties while examining complaints on merits. 21. In the case at hand, it is evident that the Banking Ombudsman has acted in a mechanical manner. Ext P5 was considered when Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 was in vogue. A perusal of Clause 8 of the 2006 Scheme shows that non-payment or inordinate delay in the payment or collection of cheques, drafts, bills and delay/non-credit of proceeds to the parties accounts, non-payment/delay in payment of inward remittances, etc. are grounds on which complaints can be filed. The specific case of the petitioner is that the amounts paid by the Iranian firm through their bankers was withheld by the UCO Bank, Treasury Branch, Mumbai and the petitioner was compelled to remit Rs. 8,27,836/- being allegedly the excess advance payment/balance left over with respect to the additional 4th respondent company. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the 4th respondent company are two distinct entities and no amount due to the petitioner concern was liable to be withheld for the alleged excess advance payment/balance left over, to be refunded by the 4th respondent company. In Ext.P5 complaint submitted to the Ombudsman, the petitioner precisely pleaded about the delay in releasing the fund to it and the loss suffered on account of the same. The petitioner further stated that the UCO bank resorted to arm-twisting to compel the petitioner to remit Rs. 8,27,836/- in the 4th respondent company’s account to secure release of Rs. 1,05,20,850/-. Therefore, the petitioner alleged that there was non-payment as well as delay in payment of the amounts due to it. Hence, in my view, prima facie it appears that Ext.P5 complaint attracts the grounds specifically mentioned in Clause 8 of the 2006 Scheme. Also, Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner to the Bank proves compliance with the requirement under Clause 9 of the scheme. Hence rejection of the complaint for the reasons stated in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 was improper. Hence, in my view, prima facie it appears that Ext.P5 complaint attracts the grounds specifically mentioned in Clause 8 of the 2006 Scheme. Also, Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner to the Bank proves compliance with the requirement under Clause 9 of the scheme. Hence rejection of the complaint for the reasons stated in paragraph 2 of Ext.P8 was improper. The explanation of the bank in Ext.P9, quoted by the Ombudsman in Ext.P8 that the amount remitted by the petitioner was available in the 4th respondent company’s account is not a proper answer to the grievance raised by the petitioner, a different entity having no account in UCO Bank. Rejection of the complaint, without adjudication is therefore the result of non application of mind. 22. Rejection of complaints submitted under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme without proper application of mind is liable to be deprecated. The Ombudsman is expected to keep in mind the objects of the Scheme and to consider complaints with proper application of mind and not mechanically as has been done in the case at hand. The institution of Ombudsman is maintained by the Reserve Bank, bearing the entire financial burden, to provide a swift, efficacious and inexpensive grievance redressal mechanism to the consumers of banking services. The Ombudsman is bound to act in a manner advancing the objects of the Scheme and never in a fashion to defeat the same. Endeavour of the Ombudsman shall be to address and redress the grievance pointed out in the complaint unless it is totally out of the scope of the Scheme. 23. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Anto vs. Indusind Bank, 2020 (1) KLT 382 , after analysing the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 held as follows: “In the light of the extracted statutory provision, it has to be understood that the Scheme is one notified in public interest with a view to prevent the affairs of the banks being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of its customers. The said fact is evident from the preamble of the Scheme itself which recites that the Scheme is one introduced with an object of enabling resolution of complaints relating to services rendered by banks and to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints. The said fact is evident from the preamble of the Scheme itself which recites that the Scheme is one introduced with an object of enabling resolution of complaints relating to services rendered by banks and to facilitate the satisfaction or settlement of such complaints. The provisions of the Scheme are, therefore, to be understood and interpreted in a manner that promotes the object of the Scheme and not in a manner that defeats its object.” 24. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that Ext.P8 is liable to be set aside and the Ombudsman shall reconsider the complaint of the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. I, therefore, set aside Ext.P8 and remand the matter for fresh adjudication. On receipt of a copy of this judgment the 1st respondent Ombudsman shall issue notice to the parties and provide opportunity of hearing to the parties to present their case. The Ombudsman shall take a fresh decision, untrammelled by any observations in this judgment on the merits of the respective contentions of parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and shall communicate the same to the parties. 25. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.