THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO. 12719 of 2010 08-06-2010 BETWEEN; Indian Overseas Bank, Begum Bazar Branch, Hyderabad, rep. by Senior Manager, G.L.Narayana ...Petitioner vs. M/s.Reliance Rubber Products, rep. by its Proprietor M.Azaruddin and four others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.12719 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recover Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 30-04-2008 in O.A.No.839 of 1999, to the extent th order saddles costs on the applicant-bank/petitioner in an amount of Rs.26,428 comprising Advocates fee of Rs.25,428/- and miscellaneous expenses o Rs.1000/- and directing the recovery officer to recover the costs from th petitioner and remit the same to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. The impugne order reads as under:- “This O.A was filed in the year 1999. Originally this O.A was filed in th year 1997 before DRT, Bangalore. D3 filed written statement. The matte was posted to 5-2-2008 for trial after the ex parte orders against D3 were se aside. The matter was adjourned to 6-3-2008 and 3-4-2008 at the request o the counsel for Applicant. Today also the counsel for Applicant reported no ready. The counsel representing the counsel for Applicant Sh P.Nandakishore reported that the matter is settled out of court and the Ban has to file F.S memo. It shows the negligence on the part of the Applican Bank in not filing of F.S memo even after settlement of O.A claim and eve after the receipt of settlement amount. Hence the O.A 839/99 is dismisse with costs. It is made clear that even after filing of F.S. memo the costs sha be recovered from the Applicant Bank and the same shall be remitted t Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Recovery Officer is directed to recover th same by taking appropriate action as per law.” Though the trigger for the imposition and quantification of the costs directe to be paid is the failure of the bank in filing a full satisfaction memo on settlemen of the disputes between the bank and the borrower, the chronology of facts se out in the impugned order discloses a persistently negligent and casual attitud exhibited by the petitioner-bank in pursuing its case before the DRT, Hyderabad In the circumstances, we are not satisfied that the imposition of costs is per s irrational. The learned Tribunal has exercised discretion rationally and within it jurisdiction. Sri P.B.Premnath, the learned counsel for the petitioner-bank wou however, strenuously contend that imposition of costs of Rs.26,428/- is undu harsh and disproportionate to the negligence of the bank as revealed in the orde impugned. Sri P.B.Premnath would further contend that even if costs were to b imposed, it should be of a nominal amount of Rs.500/- or Rs.1000/-. In ou considered view, imposition of nominal costs would act neither as a deterrent no as a corrective to the litigative negligence of the bank. Hence this contentio does not commend acceptance by this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider appropriate to allow the writ petition to the extent of modifying the amount of cost liable to be paid by the petitioner-bank for being remitted to the Prime Minister’ Relief Fund, to Rs.10,000/-. The writ petition is allowed only to the extent indicated above. No order as t costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ NOUSHAD ALI,J 8th JUNE 2010 TSNR