IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37454 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.T. PADMANABHAN, S/O.LATE K.M. KOMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, DEVI KRIPA, KOLACHERRY PARAMBA, P.O.KOLACHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, KANNUR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KANNUR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.N. SANTHOSH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.37454 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. In connection with an availed loan from the respondent Bank, petitioner filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent and that complaint was closed by Ext.P4 order. It is challenging Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed. 3. Although various contentions on the merits of the controversy have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that Ext.P4 order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner an affording him an opportunity to present his case. In that view of the matter there is a violation of Clause 12 of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. This necessarily calls for interference with Ext.P4. 4. For that reason, without expressing anything on the merits of the controversy raised, I set aside Ext.P4 and direct the second respondent to issue a notice to the W.P (C) No.37454 of 2010 2 parties affording them an opportunity to represent their case and then pass orders in the matter afresh. 5. This the 2nd respondent shall do expeditiously, at any rate, within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge