Loading...

V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011

Madras High Court
V.Subramanian vs Union Of India on 2 November, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 02/11/2011

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5406 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5408 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5410 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5412 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5413 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5537 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5540 of 2011
W.P.(MD)No.5543 of 2011
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011

W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011

V.Subramanian 		 	.. 			Petitioner

Vs.

1.Union of India,
  represented by
  The Under Secretary to the Government of India
  Department of Financial Services,
  Ministry of Finance,
  New Delhi-110 001.

2.State of Tamil Nadu
  represented by
  The Inspector,
  City Crime Branch,
  Tiruchirappalli City Police,
  Tiruchirappalli-620 021.

3.Central Bureau of Investigation
  represented by
  The Inspector,
  Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)/SPE
  Kathirkadvu, Kavloor,
  Cochin-682 017.


4.Reserve Bank of India
  represented by
  The Manager
  Reserve Bank of India
  Customer Services Department
  Central Office
  1st Floor, Amar Building
  Sir M.P.Road, Fort
  Mumbai-400 001.
5.Syndicate Bank
  represented by
  The General manager
  Syndicate Bank
  Regional Office
  Leelavathi Building
  69, Armenian Street,
  Chennai 600 001.
6.Canara Bank
  represented by
  The General Manager,
  Canara bank
  Credit Policy Section
  Risk Management Wing
  Head Office
  112, J.C.Road,
  Bangalore-560 002.
7.Indian Bank
  represented by
  The General Manager (CR)
  HO/Credit Division
  Indian Bank
  66, Rajaji Salai
  Chennai 600 001.
8.Bank of India
  represented by
  The Zonal Manager
  Bank of India
  Coimbatore Zone
  STAR House
  324, Oppanakkara Street
  Coimbatore 641 001.
9.State Bank of India
  represented by
  The Deputy General Manager
  State Bank of India
  Local Head Office
  Circle Top House
  16, College Lane
  Chennai 600 006.

10.Institution of Valuers
  represented by
  The Honorary General Secretary
  Institution of Valuers
  Head Office
  4, 5 & 6, Vishal Market
  Mukherjee Nagar (W)
  New Delhi-110 009.		   	... Respondents

PRAYER

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the
second respondent FIR in Cr.No.2/2004, dated 11.02.2004 and to quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

!For Petitioner … Mr.K.P.Vijayakumar
^For Respondents … Mr.C.Fernandas Rathinaraj for R1
Mr.M.Govindan for R2
Special Government Pleader
Mr.S.Rozario Sundar Raj for R3
Mr.K.Ramamoorthy for R4
Mr.R.Pandivel for R5
Mr.Madhavan Kutty for R6
Mr.S.Suresh for R7
Mr.M.Senthil Kumar for R8
Mr.S.Sethuraman for R9
Mr.Pala.Ramasamy for R10

:COMMON ORDER
Nine writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner is a
assisted person assisted by Mr.K.P.Vijayakumar.

2. Out of these nine writ petitions, W.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2011 is filed to
quash an FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004 as illegal arbitrary and
unconstitutional insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

3. In W.P.(MD).No.5406 of 2011 is concerned it is for the writ in the
nature of Prohibition prohibiting the third respondent in the writ petition,
namely Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), represented by The Inspector,
Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)/SPE located at Kathirkadavu, Kaloor, Kochi,
Kerala State from proceeding in S.C.No.35 of 2007 on the file of Special Judge
(CBI/SPE)-I, Sessions Court, Ernakulam, Kerala State, so far as the petitioner
is concerned.

4. W.P.(MD).No.5408 of 2011 is for a Writ in the nature of Certiorarified
Mandamus pertaining to the proceedings of the 7th respondent namely, Indian Bank
represented by The General Manager (CR), HO/Credit Division, 66, Rajaji Salali,
Chennai-1 seeking to set aside an order dated 01.11.2010 and after setting aside
the same seeks for a direction to the said Bank to reinstate the petitioner’s
name in all kinds of panel of valuers considering the service area for the whole
State of Tamil Nadu. By the impugned order dated 01.11.2010 the Indian Bank
informed the petitioner that they found certain deficiency in the professional
services rendered by the petitioner and therefore, they refused to accede his
request made by way of representation dated 13.10.2010.

5. W.P.(MD).No.5410 of 2011 is once again for a similar relief to him as
against the Bank of India vide their order dated 14.10.2008. By the said order
the Bank of India represented by Zonal Manager, Coimbatore Zone, informed the
petitioner that their branches at Pannankombu and Thuvarankurichi have
recommended discontinuance of the service of the valuer. Further he was not
available in spite of attempts and also his involvement in CBI cases, where he
was arraigned as an accused.

6. W.P.(MD).No.5412 of 2011 is to challenge the order sent by the Deputy
General Manager of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chennai. By the
said order, the Bank informed the petitioner that the inclusion of the Valuers
in the panel maintained by the Bank will be after considering various norms
regarding qualification experience, and member of Institution of Valuers and the
needs of the Bank. The Bank did not make any discrimination on the basis of
caste or creed. The review of Panel Valuers for Tiruchirapalli centre was done
in the year 2005 and it was found that there was no need to include any new
valuer in the panel. It is also stated that the persons who are not qualified as
per RBI guidelines were empanelled by the Bank was also denied.

7. It is also stated that the allegation of the petitioner that the Vice
President of Institution of Valuers used his influence to make the bank not to
include the petitioner’s name was also denied. It is also stated that no valuer
was included in the panel after 2005. It was further informed that the Bank
cannot include any person as a Valuer when the criminal case is pending against
him. They are also asked for comments from the branches concerned. On receipt of
such complaint and after the need of any new addition, the Bank will consider
the question of extending the names in the panel.

8. W.P.(MD) NO.5413 is for a direction to the 10th respondent namely,
Institution of Valuers represented by the Honorary General Secretary to grant a
compensation of 65 lakhs for the willful offences of atrocities committed
including caste discrimination against the fellow members and others and it must
be responsible for the degraded present socio-economic status of the petitioner
due to willful commission of unlawful activities.

9. W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011:- In this writ petition, the petitioner has
sought for a suitable monetary compensation as victim of police atrocities for
the arbitrary, malicious, and illegal detention for 18 days from 09.09.2006 to
27.09.2006 and further harassment by way of conditional bail on 30.11.2007 by
the second respondent, State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector, City
Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City Police.

10. W.P.(MD).No.5540 of 2011 is for calling for the records from the fifth
respondent, the Syndicate Bank and seeks to set aside an order dated 03.08.2010.
By the impugned order the Syndicate Bank informed the petitioner that pursuant
to the representation dated 10.07.2010, they are not in a position to accede to
his request for inclusion of his name in the panel of valuers, since the matter
is pending investigation by the CB CID police.

11. In W.P.(MD).No.5543 of 2011 the petitioner challenges an order dated
10.01.2011 issued by the Canara Bank and seeks to set aside the same as illegal,
arbitrary and unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to include the
petitioner’s name in all kinds of panel of valuers in the State of Tamil Nadu
maintained by them. By the impugned order, dated 10.01.2011, which was sent
pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 22.11.2010, he was informed
that his name was removed from the list of panel valuers and the allegations
made vide letter dated 22.11.2010 was baseless. The delisting of the petitioner
from the panel was done on the basis of extant guidelines in vogue.

12. These nine writ petitions in which the petitioner claims can be
classified in to six categories. The first category related to the quashing of
an FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2004, dated 11.02.2004. The second category related to
prohibiting the criminal case pending in S.C.No.35 of 2007, dated 17.02.2007 on
the file of Special judge,(CBI/SPE)-I, Sessions Court, Kochi, Kerala State. The
third category related to seeking for inclusion of his name in the panel of
valuers with various National Banks, to which the petitioner had earlier send
representation and the same was denied. The fourth category related to the
removal of the name of the petitioner from the panel by the Canara Bank for
certain reasons and the delisting is challenged. The fifth category related to
grant of compensation from the State Government for the illegal detention for
the period from 09.09.2006 to 27.09.2006 which was arbitrary, malicious and for
the further harassment done to him during the conditional bail upto 30.11.2011.
The sixth category related to the actions of the Institution of Valuers for the
various illegal acts done by them and the demand for compensation for the 15
days suffered by him.

13. Before proceeding to deal with the case of the petitioner in these
writ petitions, it is necessary to set out the backdrop leads to filing of the
present writ petitions.

14. A status report was filed by the Inspector of Police,
CBI/SPE/Kathirkadvau Post, Kaloor, Ernakulam District, Kerala dated 12.08.2011.
In the status report it was brought to the notice of this Court that the
petitioner was accused No.3 in a case registered by the CBI/ACB/Cochin Branch on
16.03.2004. The case is filed under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 471 IPC as well
as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
first information was sent to the Court as early as 16.03.2004.

15. The substance of the allegation against the petitioner was that he
prepared a valuation report for the lands, which was given by M/s.Daraja
Ventures (P) Ltd., by abusing his official position and prepared inspection
report which enable the said company to get advance money and the Canara Bank
has suffered a loss of Rs.82,32,005/-.

16. It was also stated that a charge sheet has been filed on the
completion of investigation. The charge sheet also covered the name of the
petitioner. A total number of 66 persons were cited as prosecution witnesses and
115 documents were filed as list of documents along with the charge sheet.
Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, Document Nos.20, 23 to 26 directly
links the role of the petitioner. The trial is pending before the Special Judge-
I, CBI, Ernakulam in S.C.No.35 of 2007. The Special court is yet to frame
charges and the petitioner himself had filed a discharge application under
Section 227 Cr.P.C. before that Court on 29.12.2009 in M.P.No.4400/2009, which
is also pending.

17. It is also the stand of the CBI that a loan amounting to Rs.80 lakhs
was extended by the Overseas Branch of Canara Bank, to a private company on the
basis of collateral security. The bank while processing the loan application
sought for a legal opinion of their Advocate from the panel and valuation report
of the property from the panel valuer. Since the property was situated at
Tiruchirapalli, the valuation report is obtained from Tiruchirapalli and the
person who valued was in the panel of Canara Bank, Tiruchirapalli and the
investigation also reveal the document pertaining to the property was a forged
one and no such property ever existed. The petitioner who is accused No.6, in
pursuance of the conspiracy with other accused persons had prepared a sketch
showing the property with its boundaries and valued the property for the Canara
Bank.

18. This bogus valuation report along with sketch allowed the bank to get
misguided and it had advanced a stock loan to a third party. The CBI also had
searched office of the petitioner. Incriminating documents including job order
book, Accounts Book Phone Message Book and a file containing copies of false
valuation reports were seized from the house was produced as Documents Nos.23 to
26 before the criminal Court.

19. He was shown as accused No.3 in the First Information Report and after
investigation, he was shown as accused No.6 in the charge sheet filed before the
special Court. It was also stated that charge sheet was only made on the basis
of evidence available. It was averred that the writ petition was not
maintainable.

20. The first writ petition namely W.P.(MD).NO.5406 of 2011, wherein a
writ in the nature of prohibition was taken up first for disposal. It must be
noted that admittedly, the case is still pending before the Special Judge,
(CBI/SPE)-1, Sessions Court, Ernakulam and comes under the jurisdiction of
Kerala High Court. The petitioner had also filed a discharge application before
the said Court. Therefore, at this stage it is not clear how such a writ
petition that too prayer for Writ in the nature of prohibition will lie against
a Special Court functioning in Kerala State. The offences also took place within
the State of Kerala.

21. When asked how this Court is competent to issue such a Writ of
prohibition outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the learned
counsel for the petitioner produced a text book published by Buttersworths/Lexis
Nexls on “Writs and Other Constitutional Remedies” authored by one Asim Pandya.
A reference was made to pages 90 and 91, where the scope of Article 226 and the
power to issue writs were discussed. A reference was also made to the passage
wherein the author had opined that a writ petition can be instituted in an High
Court after the amendment made Article 226 and it has a wide scope and the
territorial jurisdiction of an High Court is available even if a part of cause
of action arose. The author of the Book also made reference to the case in
Navinchandra N.Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966.
However, this Court is not inclined to accept the broad legal proposition culled
out from the book.

22. On the contrary, in respect of criminal offences, the jurisdiction of
an High Court is well defined. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Mosaraf
Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg.Ltd
reported in 2006 (3) SCC 658 dealt with
the scope of power under Article 226 of the Constitution while exercising its
extraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the orders of Magistrates taking
cognizance under Cr.P.C. It was held that an High Court under Article 226 should
not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance by a competent Court of
law. Only an High Court in whose jurisdiction the order of the Subordinate Court
would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The High Court also must remind itself about the
doctrine of forum non conveniens also. It is necessary to refer to the passages
found in paragraphs 25, 28 to 29 in that judgment which are as follows:-

25. It is no doubt true that in a criminal matter also the High Court may
exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of
the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure will stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking
cognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of
an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ of
certiorari ordinarily would not be issued by a writ court under Article 226 of
the Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v.
State of Maharashtra9.) However, we are not oblivious of a decision of this
Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai10 wherein this Court upon noticing
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar9 and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra11 opined that a Judicial Court would also be
subject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision
has again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash12. It is, however, not
necessary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noticed recently
by this Court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar13 holding that even in terms
thereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the application
thereof. In Surya Dev Rai10 we may however, notice that this Court categorically
stated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a very
limited jurisdiction. It also made a distinction between exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It categorically laid down that while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court can issue a writ
of certiorari only when an error apparent on the face of the record appears as
such; the error should be self-evident. Thus, an error according to this Court
needs to be established. As regards exercising the jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution it was held: (SCC p. 689, para 24)
“The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of
justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which
it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have,
such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though
available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the
limits of jurisdiction.”

28. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily
interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law
except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose
jurisdiction the order of the subordinate court has been passed, would have the
jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
unless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction thereof.

29. The High Courts, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum
non conveniens also. [See Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V.
Fortune Express16.
] (Emphasis added)

23. Significantly in that judgment, even the decision quoted by the author
of the Book and relied on by the petitioner i.e. Navinchandra N.Majithia’s case
(cited supra) was referred and explained. Therefore, when a competent Court
namely the Special Court in State of Kerala is seized of the matter, it is not
open to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition and such a writ
petition will not lie.

24. This Court also lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with a matter
seized by the Court in State of Kerala and the power to deal with the the
grievance of the petitioner, is the High Court of Kerala and not this Court.
Therefore, the W.P.(MD)No.5406 of 2011 is liable to be rejected. Accordingly,
W.P.(MD).No.5406 of 2011 will stand dismissed.

25. In W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011 once again the prayer is to quash an FIR
in Cr.NO.2 of 2004 dated 11.02.2004. It is a case registered by the Inspector of
Police, Special Crime Branch, Tiruchirapalli. The case was registered on the
basis of a specific complaint by the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, S.R.College
Branch, Tiruchirapalli. Subsequent to the criminal case, the petitioner had
applied for bail, which was granted with conditions. He also filed modification
and the same was also granted by the Special Court, Tiruchirapalli. The
conditions imposed was also subsequently relaxed on 30.01.2011 by the same
Sessions Court. It is at this stage, the petitioner had come forward to quash
the first information report as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional.

26. The contention raised by the petitioner was that there was no legal
provision under which the police can register a complaint for the valuation
report which was said to be a forged document. He cannot found fault if the
document was a forged one. Hence, the criminal proceedings are void. The State
Police ought to have transferred the bank fraud case to the CBI for lack of its
jurisdiction. Therefore, the first information report was invalid. A reference
was also made to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State
(NCT of Delhi) & others (2006 (2) Supreme 243 = 2006(2) SCC 677). It was also
claimed the valuer is not a investigator and he only follows the identification
of the property to determine its market value and they cannot be experts. The
entire initiation of the case was that the investigation was without
jurisdiction and it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Reliance placed upon
Ramesh Kumari’s case (cited supra) seeking for transfer of investigation to CBI
by the petitioner is inappropriate. The case does not help the petitioner as can
be seen from the passage found in paragraph 5 of the said order, which is as
follows:

“5.The views expressed by this Court in paras 31, 32 and 33 as quoted above
leave no manner of doubt that the provision of Section 154 of the Code is
mandatory and the officer concerned is duty-bound to register the case on the
basis of such an information disclosing cognizable offence.”

27.Further, in that case, all the parties have agreed for transferring the
case to CBI which is more or less by consent order as can be seen from paragraph
7 of the order, which is as follows:

“7.In this case, admittedly, the complaint was filed against the police officer.
Learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that in such a situation the
interest of justice would be better served if this Court directs CBI to register
the case and investigate the matter.”

28. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the question of
quashing a first information report at this stage. The allegations showed that
the petitioner was responsible in a conspiracy. Even those allegations related
to any banking transaction, it does not mean that the State police has no
jurisdiction to enquire into the complaint. Ultimately, after the investigation,
even if any final report is filed before a competent Court, there will be time
enough for the petitioner to object to the report. Because a first information
report was registered on a complaint of cognizable offences and the
investigation had proceeded, leading to the arrest of the petitioner, it will
not be a ground to invalidate a F.I.R. The competency or otherwise will be
decided only when the final report is submitted by the investigating officer.
The petitioner cannot forestall the police from taking a decision after the
investigation is completed.

29. As to the limitation of this Court to interfere with a first
information report came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Shashikant V
CBI reported in (2007) 1 SCC 630. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 30 and 32 held
as follows:-

“30. The first respondent is a statutory authority. It has a statutory duty to
carry out investigation in accordance with law. Ordinarily, it is not within the
province of the court to direct the investigative agency to carry out
investigation in a particular manner. A writ court ordinarily again would not
interfere with the functioning of an investigative agency. Only in exceptional
cases, it may do so. No such case has been made out by the appellant herein. The
nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain of a
writ court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case is
made out.

32. So far as the decision of the first respondent herein, not to register a
regular case so as to take up an investigation into the allegation against the
officers concerned, is concerned, the appellant may have to pursue his own
remedy keeping in view the fact that the first respondent before this Court has
furnished the details of its findings in the preliminary inquiry as also the
result of the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent
officers.”

30. The Supreme Court also held that quashing of a criminal complaint
cannot be done in a writ petition under Article 226 on the basis of assertion of
the accused. The facts may have to be established on evidence at the trial. This
principle was laid down in Veera Exports v. T.Kalavathy reported in (2002) 1 SCC

97. In paragraph number 10, it was observed as follows:-

10. . . .This is a fact which will have to be established on evidence
during trial. At this stage the High Court could not have quashed the complaint
merely on the basis of an assertion in the reply.

31. Further, the Supreme Court in Rukmani Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar
reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 dealt with the scope of the high Court in quashing a
criminal charge or a complaint under Article 226. After referring all the
previous case laws, the Supreme Court held that the defence of an accused cannot
be looked into at the time of framing of the charge sheet. Only in a rare and an
exceptional case, the defence can be taken note of. In paragraph 22 it was
observed as follows:-

“22. Thus in our opinion, while it is true that ordinarily defence material
cannot be looked into by the court while framing of the charge in view of D.N.
Padhi case6, there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some
defence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate
that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very
rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the court at the time of
framing of the charges or taking cognizance. In our opinion, therefore, it
cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the
court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of
the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the
defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole
prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted.”

32. In the light of self imposed restraint of this Court, this Court is
not inclined to quash the FIR, even at the stage of investigation. Hence the
writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011 will stand dismissed.

33. W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011 the prayer is based upon the result in
W.P.(MD).No.5405 of 2011. The petitioner seeks for compensation as a victim of
police atrocities. The petitioner has come out on bail and the conditions
imposed on the bail have been relaxed. The investigation is not over and hence
the question of considering any compensation for the alleged unlawful detention
will not arise. With reference to allegation of inflictment of torture either
mentally or physically, such issues can be decided only after the completion of
the investigation and the final report if any filed is thrown out by a competent
criminal Court. At the stage when petitioner has been freed on bail, such
questions cannot be considered and the grant of compensation will not arise.
Hence, W.P.(MD).No.5537 of 2011 will also stand dismissed.

34. W.P.(MD).No.5413 of 2011 the issue is relating to the petitioner being
unfairly treated by the Institution of Valuers and therefore he is liable to get
compensation of Rs.65 lakhs and that there was caste discrimination by the
institution of valuers is concerned, it must be noted that such institution of
valuers is only a private body and not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this
Court. For this proposition one has only to refer to a decision of the Supreme
Court in Zee Tele films Ltd Vs. Union of India reported in 2005 (4) SCC 649.

35. The contesting respondent is only an Association of Valuers run by is
own bye-laws. It is necessary to know about the Institution of Valuers (For
short IOV) and its various functions which will clearly show that it is a Non-
Governmental Organisation and registered as a society. The official website of
the IOV describe its role and functions as follows:

“The Institution of Valuers (IOV) is a premier organization of valuation
professionals in India, embracing about 70% of recognized valuation
professionals in the country from across various specialisms and geographical
regions of India. It was the first national professional valuation society to be
established in 1968 (Registered under the Societies Registration Act XXI of
1860) with branches in the majority of States of India. It has the global status
of premier valuation organization with current membership reaching over 20,000
valuers.

IOV is amongst the top five valuers association of the world on the basis of
registered valuation professionals. The Institution of Valuers brings into its
fold valuers of immovable property, agricultural lands, coffee estates, stocks,
shares and debentures of companies, shares of a partner in a partnership,
business assets including goodwill, jewellery, precious stones and ornaments,
works of art, life interest reversions and interests expectancy, tea estates,
standing forests, mines and quarries, machinery, electrical equipments,
industry, etc.
IOV being the premier valuation association of India assists and guide general
public, government and semi-government bodies in all types of valuation matters.
IOV assists and guides general public, government and semi-government bodies in
adjudicating valuation related disputes through its Experts Council, certifying
valuation professionals and developing valuation standards. IOB guides its
members to stick to and follow principles of valuation while valuing properties
and assets to avoid variance in value of properties of similar nature.
IOV imparts, encourages and arranges for training of the valuation and survey
work of all types. It also hosts its semi-annual valuation Conferences and
seminars to discuss advances in methodology and public valuation policy.
IOV has been in the process of establishing and maintaining libraries and
publish magazines, periodicals and books. The IOV is a founder and publisher of
the Indian Valuer, Monthly periodical, a leading national research periodical of
the valuation. IOV grants diplomas or certificates of Fellowship or Membership
to the members who are eligible for the same by experience and/or general
qualifications. It also holds examination in all branches for valuation work for
enrolment of members.

This Institution has been formed to assist in the task of formulation of ideas,
spreading knowledge and education on matters relating to valuation for the
Central and State Governments and General Public. It also renders advisory
service to Valuers, Government Departments, Banking institutions and the General
Public in solving their problems and overcome difficulties in valuation
techniques through its monetary journal Indian Valuer (which the members of the
institution get free of cost) and also by holding Seminars/Lecturers/Work-shops
regularly, all over India.

The fellowship of the Institution is awarded only to the highly qualified
engineers and other competent valuers, having at least 10 years practical
experience in valuation work in different categories of assets. All members are
bound by code of conduct and professional ethics as propounded by the
Institution.”

Therefore, the petitioner seeking for compensation from a private organization
on any grounds including the grounds set out in the writ petition, is not
feasible for compliance. It is for the petitioner to work out his remedy
elsewhere. In view of the fact that such a writ is not maintainable,
W.P.(MD).No.5413 of 2011 will also stand dismissed.

36. W.P.(MD).No.5543 of 2011 relating to delisting the petitioner from
the panel of valuers by the Canara Bank is concerned, the said question cannot
be considered. The reasons assigned in the order dated 10.01.2011 i.e. that
delisting has been done in the light of the guidelines kept with the bank and
that the petitioner was facing a criminal case cannot be lightly brushed aside.

37. The panel of valuers are maintained by the bank for its own
convenience. Hence, the relationship between a bank and the petitioner is
contractual in nature. It is for the bank to retain a particular valuer. If
there are any strong and compelling reasons are available, it is always open to
the Bank to delist any person from the list of its panel. The allegation that it
was due caste discrimination, he was removed cannot be believed in the light of
the pending first information report against the petitioner by the
Tiruchirapalli police as well as the pending criminal case before the Special
Judge at Kochi. Hence the attempt by the petitioner for setting aside the
impugned order cannot be countenanced by this Court.

37. In the present case, by the impugned communications, the petitioner
was informed about the norms fixed by each bank and also non inclusion of any
fresh valuers in the existing banks as well as the reports obtained from the
branches regarding the conduct of the petitioner in the grant of false valuation
report, which resulted in a CBI investigation and filing of a charge sheet.
These materials strongly suggest that this Court cannot give a direction to the
banks to retain the name of the petitioner in the panel of valuers without his
coming out unimpeached by the criminal Court. Until such time, the bank can be
guided by the materials which cannot be ignored. The materials relied on cannot
be considered either irrelevant or illegal in such circumstances.

36.Though nationalised banks are amenable to writ jurisdiction, it does
not mean every action of such banks can be called in question for a judicial
review by this court. In matters of contract, unless the orders are wholly
arbitrary or unreasonable, the court will decline to exercise its jurisdiction.
In this context it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in
Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited reported in
(2008) 12 SCC 541 and in paragraph 16, it was observed as follows:
“16.It is one thing to say that the public sector banks having regard to the
provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)
Act, 1970 should discharge their functions keeping in mind the larger public
interest but ordinarily in the matter of enforcement of contract, they are to be
governed by the terms thereof, which would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction
of the High Court unless the actions of the banks are found to be wholly
arbitrary and unreasonable.”

38.In the very same case, when a complaint was made by the cooperative
society about the unfair action of nationalised banks, the Supreme Court took
note of the role played by the cooperative banks themselves in the mater of
fraud and as the matter was pending before the the criminal court, it was opined
that the High Court should not have gone into such issues. In paragraph 39 of
the order, it was observed as follows:

“39.The question as to whether fraud has been committed by the officers of the
bank is pending consideration before a competent criminal court. There are other
various disputed questions which are required to be gone into in the said
proceeding. The role played by some of the respondent-writ petitioners is also
in issue. Such seriously disputed questions of fact, in our opinion, could not
have been gone into by the writ court.”

Hence the attempt by the petitioner to challenge the delisting by the respondent
bank from the panel of valuers cannot be entertained. Hence W.P.(MD)No.5543 of
2011 will stand dismissed.

39. In respect of the four nationalised banks which had rejected the
petitioner’s applications for inclusion in their panel of valuers are concerned,
it must be noted that a panel of valuers are maintained by the banks only in aid
of the banks. If a particular valuer was facing criminal case, there will be no
justification to have his name included in their panels.

40. Further, the inclusion or exclusion of any name in the panel of
valuers is a discretionary acts of the banks. Only when discretion had been
exercised improperly, this Court cannot go into the said issue under Article 226
in the matter of purely contractual in nature. Therefore, the writ petitions are
liable to be rejected. Accordingly, W.P.(MD).Nos.5408, 5410, 5412 and 5540 of
2011 stand dismissed.

41. Further, the counsel for the petitioner finally made a statement that
the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the Court
must show sympathy in dealing with the matters.

42. When matters are covered by legal precedents, rule or law enjoins this
Court not ignore the legal precedent in the matter of granting relief. If the
allegations against the petitioner that false or vexatious or malicious cases
were launched against him, either in the criminal law on in any other
proceedings, Section 3(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes
(prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 makes such acts as offences. Even in case
of malicious prosecution, the petitioner can work out his remedy by approaching
the appropriate forum. But, it must be noted that under Section 22 of the Act
protection has been given for actions taken on good faith. It has been
specifically provided that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall
lie against the Central Government or the State Government or any officer or
authority of the Government or any other persons for anything which is in good
faith done or intended to be done under this Act. Therefore, unless the
petitioner makes out an extraordinary case, before an appropriate forum, the
question of considering the last submission of the counsel for the petitioner
will not arise in these writ petitions.

41. In view of the above factual matrix and legal precedents, all the writ
petitions will stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed. No costs.

jikr

To

1.Union of India,
represented by
The Under Secretary to the Government of India
Department of Financial Services,
Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-110 001.

2.State of Tamil Nadu
represented by
The Inspector,
City Crime Branch,
Tiruchirappalli City Police,
Tiruchirappalli-620 021.

3.Central Bureau of Investigation
represented by
The Inspector,
Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI)/SPE
Kathirkadvu, Kavloor,
Cochin-682 017.

4.Reserve Bank of India
represented by
The Manager
Reserve Bank of India
Customer Services Department
Central Office
1st Floor, Amar Building
Sir M.P.Road, Fort
Mumbai-400 001.

5.Syndicate Bank
represented by
The General manager
Syndicate Bank
Regional Office
Leelavathi Building
69, Armenian Street,
Chennai 600 001.

6.Canara Bank
represented by
The General Manager,
Canara bank
Credit Policy Section
Risk Management Wing
Head Office
112, J.C.Road,
Bangalore-560 002.

7.Indian Bank
represented by
The General Manager (CR)
HO/Credit Division
Indian Bank
66, Rajaji Salai
Chennai 600 001.

8.Bank of India
represented by
The Zonal Manager
Bank of India
Coimbatore Zone
STAR House
324, Oppanakkara Street
Coimbatore 641 001.

9.State Bank of India
represented by
The Deputy General Manager
State Bank of India
Local Head Office
Circle Top House
16, College Lane
Chennai 600 006.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information