Paramasivam v. The Director
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date : 23/09/2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR and WMP(MD) No.19026 of 2024 Paramasivam ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Director, Reserve Bank of India, New Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 001..
2. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001..
3. The Deputy General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Fort Glacis, No.16, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001..
4. The Managing Director and Ceo, Bank of Baroda,Mumbai, Maharashtra..
1/6
5. The Director, Bank of Baroda, Head Office, Mandvi, Baroda, Gujarat - 394160..
6. The General Manager (Operation and Services), Bank of Baroda,Head Office, Baroda Bhawan, Rc Dutt Road, Alkapuri, Baroda - 390 007, Gujarat..
7. The General Manager, Zonal Office, Bank of Baroda, Lh2 Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 018..
8. The Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Bank of Baroda, 82, Bank Road, 3rd Floor, Opposite Railway Station, Coimbatore - 641 018..
9. The Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Aparna Towers - 2nd Floor, C-2, 3, Bye-Pass Road, Madurai - 625 016..
10. The Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ponmeni Branch, Madurai - 625 016..
... Respondents 2/6
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for records of the impugned order of No.BOB.CHN.LEGAL.175 dated 06.09.2024 passed by the 7th Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 7th and 10th Respondents to disburse the Petitioners outstanding matured Term deposits amount with interest in total Rs.12,03,57,860/- (Rupees twelve crore three lakh fifty seven thousand eight hundred and sixty rupees only). For Petitioner : Mr.R. Murugappan, For Respondent : Mr.K.Muralideeran for R7 to R10
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the 7th respondent dated 06.09.2024 and consequently direct the 7th and 10th respondents to disburse the petitioner's outstanding matured Term deposits amount with interest in total Rs.12,03,57,860/-.
2. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he is the class I contractor. At the time of allotting the work order, he has deposited a 3/6
sum of Rs.12,03,57,860/- as EMD and term deposits have been made in favour of the 7th respondent. Though the work has been completed as early as in the eyar 1995, the term deposits taken in favour of the 7th respondent has not been returned with interest so far to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the 7th respondent, challenging which, the petitioner has filed a review before the 4th respondent and it is suffice, if a direction is given to the 4th respondent to dispose of the review on its own merits.
5. In view of the limited prayer now sought for by the petitioner to dispose of the review said to have been filed by him, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to dispose of the review filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on its own merits and in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to all the parties.
4/6
6. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 23.09.2024 RR 5/6
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J RR
ORDER
IN WP(MD) No.22451 of 2024 Date : 23/09/2024 6/6