[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10919/2008 MOHINDER SINGH BHATEJA Vs. PUNJAB & SIND BANK & ORS. Date: 22.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. S.S. Hora for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Hasan for the respondents. **** The matter comes up on the second stay application. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are agreed that the mater may be heard and disposed of finally at this stage. The controversy in this writ petition is that though the petitioner is entitled to appoint defence representative as per the terms of Clause 12 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement, but the request of the petitioner has been turned down on the ground that name of defence nominee, as suggested by the petitioner, is from outside of the State. The petitioner alternatively prayed that he may be allowed to appoint a person of the Rajasthan Pradesh Bank Employees Union as defence nominee to represent his case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that they may permit the defence nominee as per the request made on behalf of the petitioner, if of the same State, in accordance with the provisions of law which has been referred by the [2] learned counsel for the petitioner that the union of the Federation of the Bank of the State can represent his case as per the provisions of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to represent his case through defence nominee as per the provisions of law and shall provide him opportunity of cross examining the witnesses of the Bank and also give liberty to lead defence evidence and produce the documents in his favour and after affording opportunity of cross examination and to lead defence evidence, shall give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/ defence nominee, so appointed by the respondents and shall follow bare minimum principle of natural justice and the respondent Bank, as indicated herein above, is at liberty to proceed further with the enquiry pending against the petitioner. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Since the writ petition stands disposed of, the stay application stands rejected. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/