Smt Renu Jain v. Punjab National Bank & ORS

03.9 W.P.A. 6197 of 2020 With CAN 1 of 2020 (C.A.N. 4526 of 2020) (Through Video Conference) Smt. Renu Jain -VersusPunjab National Bank & Ors.

Ct.

No.

akb Mr. Anirban Majumder ...For the Petitioner Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury ...For the Respondent PNB In view of the urgency, the matter is taken for hearing. The application being CAN 1 of 2020 (C.A.N. 4526 of 2020) is disposed of.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by a notice dated February 27, 2020 issued by the Punjab National Bank seeking certain clarification from the petitioner with regard to certain transactions. The case of the petitioner is that the Forensic Audit dated February 13, 2018 is for the period April 01, 2018 to March 31, 2017 of Divyajyoti Sponge Iron Private Ltd.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had retired in the year 2012 itself and therefore could have nothing to say with regard to a subsequent period.

Per contra, Ms. Parna Roy Chowdhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab National Bank submits that the audit report is for a subsequent period but the same discloses transactions of periods when the petitioner was an employee of the Company. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner was

guarantor on behalf of the Company, Divyajyoti Sponge Iron Private Ltd. and, therefore, certain clarification have been sought from the petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and I am of the view that this writ petition is a premature one and has not yet violated any rights of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Since, no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed to have not been admitted by the respondents. There will be no order as to costs.

( Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)