Principles of natural justice, opportunity to place relevant materials/documents, liberty to take recourse to alternative remedies, mode of proceedings during the pandemic

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) An appropriate direction/directions may be given to the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to consider the claim of the petitioner particularly in the circumstances where the settled norms for benefit in loan insurance is given to all borrowers or only to the principal borrower and thereafter to pay/adjust the insured sum of Rs. 66,91,639/- only against the outstanding dues arising since the date of death of the principal borrower ( husband of the petitioner) under the Home Equity loan bearing Loan Account No. 641552079 and 642100459 dated 21.05.2019 in which the husband of the petitioner Late Kumar Ashutosh was the principal borrower and the petitioner is the Co-borrower.

(ii) During the pendency of the writ application, the petitioner may be exempted from the premium charged by the Respondent HDFC Life Insurance as well as the loan installment to the HDFC Bank which is till now being regularly paid by the petitioner.

(iii) An appropriate direction/ directions may be given to the Respondent No. 2 (Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India) to finally decide her claim/ grievances pending before the competent authority since 25.01.2022.

(iv) During the pendency of the writ application, no coercive steps may be taken by the Respondent No. 3 (HDFC Bank Ltd.).

(v) And other relief/ reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the case as deem fit and proper by this Hon'ble court.”

3. After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievances.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.

5. Statement accepted and taken on record.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.N. Jeevaraj vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:

“34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 504 to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, Para 16)

“16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court.”

36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91 and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters th