M. Palaniappan, v. The Chief General Manager
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI W.A(MD)NO.348 OF 2018 M.Palaniappan :Appellant/Petitioner .Vs.
1. The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Central Office, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005.
2. The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Managing Director and CEO, Manappuram Finance Limited, Valapad Post, Trichur, Kerala.
4. The Branch Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited, K.K.Nagar, Trichy.
: Respondents/Respondents PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.8888 of 2013, dated 08.12.2017.
Prayer in WP(MD). 8888/ 2013 :
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondent to to conduct an enquiry on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner dated 07.05.2013 after giving reasonable opportunity to the 3rd and 4th respondents and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and thereby to cancel the license granted to the 3rd and 4th respondents.
For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj for M/s.D.Sadiq Raja For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Laxman 1 and 2 For Respondents : Mr.S.Ramesh 3 and 4 for M/s.V.Raghavachari JUDGEMENT [Judgement of the Court was made by K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.] The appellant is the Writ Petitioner. He sought for mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry on the basis of his complaint, dated 7.5.2013 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and to cancel the licence granted to the respondents 3 and 4.
2.It seems that the appellant has pledged his jewels with the fourth respondent/Bank and there is a dispute with regard to the rate of interest payable towards such jewel loan. Thus the Writ Petitioner had approached the respondents 1 and 2 and made a complaint on 7.5.2013. As the said complaint was not considered, according to the Petitioner, he approached this Court and filed the above Writ Petition.
3.The Writ Court after hearing both sides and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the complaint made by the Writ Petitioner had already been considered and appropriate order has been passed, closed the Writ Petition. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed before this Court, mainly by contending that the communication referred to in the order of the learned Single Judge is not a communication disposing the representation of the Petitioner on merits and on the other hand, it is a communication informing the Petitioner that the Reserve Bank of India cannot intervene in the matter any further as the matter become subjudice. 4.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5.It appears that the Writ Petitioner has some grievance with regard to the rate of interest payable towards the jewel loan. Therefore, he made a complaint to the Reserve Bank of India. Perusal of the communication, dated 23.7.2013 and the earlier communication, dated 8.5.2013 addressed to the writ Petitioner would indicate that the Reserve Bank of India has considered the Petitioner's complaint and passed an order, wherein it has specifically stated that the Reserve Bank of India does not regulate the rate of interest granted by the NBFCs on the loan amount. In another proceedings, dated 23.07.2013 also, the Reserve Bank of India has referred to
certain facts before stating that they do not want to intervene in the matter any further. Therefore, if the Petitioner is having any grievance further on the rate of interest charged by the fourth respondent/Bank, it is for him to work out his remedy before the appropriate Court of Law, by challenging those proceedings issued by the Reserve Bank of India or by initiating civil proceedings, since the prayer sought for in this Writ Petition filed by the Writ Petitioner is only to consider the complaint given by the Petitioner. Therefore, We find that the present Writ Appeal is totally misconceived. Accordingly, the same is disposed of, by granting liberty to the Appellant to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum. No costs.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Central Office, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005.
2. The Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.
+1CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate, SR.No.68210 W.A(MD)NO.348 OF 2018 14.06.2018 VSN ES/SV MMS/SAR4/29/06/2018/3P/4C