1 wp5640.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5640 OF 2010 Sanjeev S. Agarwal : Petitioner V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Mr.T.N.Tripathi for respondent no.1. ..... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 16, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.1010 passed by the D.R.T. as well as the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the D.R.A.T. confirming the order of the D.R.T. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of non-supply of documents by the respondent- Bank to the petitioner concerning the proceedings initiated by the Bank under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act against security. It is 2 wp5640.10 submitted that in spite of the best efforts made by the petitioner, the Bank failed to give even inspection of those documents and, therefore, the act of the respondent-Bank amounts to denial of opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case before the Tribunal. It is, therefore, contended that the orders passed by the D.R.T. and the D.R.A.T. are without considering the principles of natural justice which is available to the petitioner and, therefore, are bad in law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Bank is ready and willing to give inspection to the petitioner in respect of those documents which are connected with the proceedings initiated by the Bank for recovery of loans under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act. It is also contended that insofar as the documents pertaining to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are concerned, they are already shown on the website of the R.B.I. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the order passed by the D.R.A.T. In the order of the D.R.A.T., particularly in paragraphs 9 and 10, it is observed thus:- “9. The learned counsel for the respondent bank 3 wp5640.10 has also submitted that O.A. No.75/2008 is pending before the same Tribunal and the applicant was offered inspection of the documents but he declined to take inspection of the documents but he declined to take inspection. Therefore, the allegation of the respondent bank that the appellant is more interested in delaying the case rather than taking inspection of the documents, seems to be substantiated by the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The applicant has also claimed inspection of copy of all RBI circulars from head office to branch office given in para “G” of the Annexure to I.A. No.13/2010. These are public documents and these documents are on website of the RBI. Appellant can access the same and take inspection of these documents. As stated earlier the scope of an application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the appellant’s application for inspection. There is no merit in this 4 wp5640.10 appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed with the following order: O R D E R The appeal is hereby dismissed with costs.” 5. It is not in dispute that in the petition, there is no averments made by the petitioner that the circular and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are not displayed on its website. Similarly, the Bank is ready and willing to give inspection of the documents as referred to above. 6. In the circumstances, we are of the view that no case is made out for grant of indulgence. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)