C.W.P. No.14360 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14360 of 2011 Date of Decision.08.08.2011 R.M. Jain s/o Sh. Mool Chand Jain, resident of House No.240-L, Model Town, Karnal, Proprietor of M/s Special Machines G.T. Road, Bye Pass, Karnal and another .....Petitioners Versus Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Operations and Development, Central Office, Centre 1, Guffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbi through its Governor and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. A.K.Jain, Advocate and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner, who was a borrower from Hindustan Commercial Bank, has grievance that the Bank, which had issued the loan, has amalgamated with Punjab National Bank through a Scheme and the Scheme was later approved by the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner would refer to Para 17 of the Scheme that refer to:- “17. If any doubt arises in interpreting any of the provisions of this scheme, the matter shall be referred to the Reserve Bank of India and its opinion shall be conclusive and binding on both the transferee bank and transferor bank, and also on all the members, depositors and other creditors and employees of each of these banks and on any other person having any rights C.W.P. No.14360 of 2011 -2- or liability in relation to any of these banks.” 2. The petitioner states that he has raised a dispute through a communication sent to the Reserve Bank of India expressing a doubt about the Scheme and seeking for certain clarifications relating to the debt. The doubt essentially is that at the time when the accounts were transferred to the transferee Bank, they had classified the petitioner's account as among “advances considered not readily realisable and/or bad or doubtful of recovery.” This according to the petitioner, entitles him to a hearing to clarify whether this particular debt has been transferred to the transferee Bank. It is admitted case that the transferee Bank is taking action for recovery of amounts, which had been advanced. The petitioner states that he neither seeks relief in respect of such recovery nor would he seek any stay of such proceedings. All that, he would be interested, would be to secure a personal hearing by Reserve Bank of India to dispel his doubts, which he has raised through his representation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to me decisions in Swadesh Cotton Mills Vs. Union of India (UOI) (1981) 1 SCC 664 and Sahara India (Firm) Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I 2008(226) E.L.T. 22(S.C.) that spelt out that principles of natural justice contemplate a right to personal hearing as an essential component and the same cannot be denied. Learned cousnel also refers a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Det Norske Veritas Vs. Reserve Bank of India, Bombay and another AIR 1989 Bom 162 for the same proposition. 3. I do not think that any of the above referred decisions will have any bearing in the case of a debtor pleading that scheme of C.W.P. No.14360 of 2011 -3- amalgamation could be a matter of doubt for a person to demand from the Reserve Bank a right of personal hearing. The loan, which he had contracted with the transferor bank has also stood tranferred to the transferee Bank. The decisions that recognize enforcement of statutory rights are in a different league than a person, who wants to know whether the debt contracted by him subsists or not. The Reserve Bank of India that approves of a scheme of amalgamation cannot be vexed by small-time borrowers to lodge a query whether he shall be liable to pay the money borrowed by him to a constituent bank or not. Right of hearing or the principle of audi alteram partem does not import at all times a personal hearing. It depends on the nature of enquiry and the grievance that a particular person has. 4. Hearings are of two main kinds; viz., judicial and administrative. The former imposes certain strict standards of fairness, akin to court procedure. The latter are less formal. Consequently, the hearing procedures themselves will vary. Courts have powers to dictate procedures suitable to a particular situation (Pl. See Gouranga Chakraborty Vs. State of Tripura AIR 1989 SC 1321). Submission of written representation by the concerned person may be regarded as adequate compliance with natural justice, as held in Union of India Vs. Jesus Sales Corpn. AIR 1996 SC 1509; The Chairman, Board of Mining and Chief Inspector of Mines Vs. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965. In my view, a written representation and a direction to consider such representation by the RBI is sufficient, having regard to the nature of doubt and the degree of formality that such a hearing might require. 5. All that the petitioner would be entitled to obtain by means of C.W.P. No.14360 of 2011 -4- any intervention through this Court is a direction that the Reserve Bank of India will give the suitable reply to the petitioner's doubt which he had raised and if such a reply is given, that should be taken as conforming to the needs of the situation. I do not think that the Reserve Bank of India could be burdened with a personal hearing to provide the petitioner any opportunity for him for expatiating on what he has submitted through written representations. The petitioner is given liberty to forward a copy of his representation along with a copy of this order within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on such receipt of representation, the Reserve Bank of India through a competent officer shall reply within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. With these observations, the claim for personal hearing is rejected and the writ petition is disposed of, dispensing with notice to the respondents. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 08, 2011 Pankaj*