← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/2860/2018disposed of

M/S Rai Engineer And Valuer And ANR v. Central Bank Of India And ORS

2021-11-18Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh2 pages

CWP-2860-2018 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-2860-2018 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2021 M/s RAI ENGINEER AND VALUER AND ANR.

......Petitioners

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents.

**** RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral) The petitioner has preferred this petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of Certiorari, quashing letter dated 26.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondent-Bank to Indian Banks Association and resultant caution list (Annexure P-9) issued by respondent No. 3 to Chief Executives of all member Banks to remove the name of the petitioner from the list of empanelled/approved valuers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action has been taken against petitioner No. 2 and the same has civil consequences. The punishment has been JYOTI 2021.11.23 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2860-2018 (O&M) inflicted upon the petitioner without following the principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner relies upon the decision dated 27.09.2017 passed in CWP No. 2310 of 2016 titled Harpreet Singh Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and others to contend that even if the action lies under the discretionary domain of the respondent-Bank, yet the same has to be taken after complying with principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that respondent No. 1 is ready to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 2 while re-visiting the issue in question within a specified period.

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties on the basis of aforesaid judgment dated 27.09.2017, impugned order is set aside. The matter is referred back to respondent No. 2 to pass an appropriate order after complying with the ratio of Harpreet Singh's case (supra).

The petitioner would be at liberty to apply for re-empanelment in accordance with law/policy.    

       

         JYOTI 2021.11.23 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document