IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4719 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJ FLIGHT SERVICES PVT.LTD.,FCI ROAD, AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REJI VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PANKAJ TOWERS, SPENCER JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.DEVAN RAMACHANDRA, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 4719/10. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.10.07. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.26.10.07. P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.5.3.09. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.24.12.09. P5. COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 4719 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed a petition before the 2nd respondent-Banking Ombudsman in respect of a dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. That dispute has been transferred by the 2nd respondent to the Banking Ombudsman at Bombay, by Ext.P4 order. That is under challenge before me. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Banking Ombudsman does not have any power to transfer a petition filed before him to an Ombudsman in another State. Therefore, Ext.P4 may be quashed and the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the petition filed by the petitioner on merits, is their contention. 3. I have heard the counsel for the 1st respondent also. 4. The 1st respondent could not satisfy me that the Banking Ombudsman for Kerala is empowered to transfer a petition filed before him to any other Banking Ombudsman of any other State. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 is without jurisdiction and Ext.P4 is accordingly quashed. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, on merits, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2