IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 11641 of 2011(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJESHKUMAR.D, ANIL SADANAM, MARUTHUMOODU, MANNOORKONAM.P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 541. BY ADVS. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL, SRI.P.R.PRATEESH. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF NON BANKING SUPERVISION, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 3. KOSAMATTAM MKC FINANCIERS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEDUMANGAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 541, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.S.G. OF INDIA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.PADMALAYAN, C.G.C R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.11641/2011 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CREDIT VOUCHER DTD. 30/10/2010. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/11/2010. P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20/11/2010. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 03/02/2011. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/03/2011. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 24/03/2011. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 06/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3(A): COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT NO.475900 DTD. 19/04/2011 DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. R3(B): COVERING LETTER DTD. 19/04/2011 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. R3(C): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 20/04/2011 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.111641 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner had availed a gold loan from the 3rd respondent as borne by Ext.P1. The grievance of the petitioner is that exorbitant interest was being charged by the 3rd respondent at the rate of 36%, which was absolutely without any rhyme or reason. It led to filing of a compliant before the Reserve Bank of India for immediate intervention and to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent. The grievance projected in the Writ Petition is that, in spite of filing the compliant as above, the 1st and 2nd respondents are not taking any action against the 3rd respondent, which in turn is sought to be implemented by giving appropriate directions to the said respondents. 2. On service of notice on admission, the 3rd respondent has appeared, who has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that, subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, they were served with a notice bearing No.DNBS(T) No.940/02.08.002/2010-11 dated 03-02-2011, issued by the RBI, whereby they were directed to refund the excess interest in respect of the transaction. The 3rd respondent has also filed copies of the relevant proceedings, stating that as per the relevant norms, the existing rate of interest W.P.(C)No. 11641/2011 - 2 - at the time of granting the gold loan was 27 % and as such, the excess amount was immediately worked out and the same was refunded to the petitioner by a Demand Draft, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R3(a). No further intervention is warranted, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner has got a contention that the actual rate of interest in respect of gold loan was only 14% and this being the position, the petitioner is entitled to have refund of much more amount. It is in the said circumstances that, positive orders are sought to be passed to direct the RBI to take action against the 3rd respondent. 4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the matter was immediately acted upon by the RBI, giving appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent. It is also discernible from the relevant letter produced, that, pursuant to the said proceedings, the 3rd respondent was directed to refund the excess amount, which according to them was liable to be refunded. According to the 3rd respondent, the rate of interest is stated as 27% and thus they returned the balance amount to an extent of W.P.(C)No. 11641/2011 - 3 - Rs.1682/- as borne by Ext.R3(a). The further dispute with regard to actual rate of interest and the quantum of refund cannot be adjudicated by this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; but to be worked out elsewhere. The Writ Petition is closed, however without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE