Point of Law: it is evident that the petitioner has not only claimed refund of full processing fees from respondent no.4, a private bank, but has also challenged the communication dated June 12, 2017 of the Assistant Manager, CEPC, RBI which closed the dispute raised by the petitioner regarding return of processing fees. Since the Reserve Bank of India is an instrumentality of the State, it comes squarely within the meaning of "State" as contemplated in Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, the writ petition is maintainable

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-

1. The petitioner is a company coming within the purview of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Act, 2006 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of M.S. Barrels to the Oil Sector and various other sectors. On September 24, 2015 the respondent no.4, that is, the IndusInd Bank granted “in-principle” sanction, subject to final sanction of the Credit Committee, for credit facility worth Rs.25.05 crore to the petitioner. It was mentioned that the processing fee of 0.60 percent of the total sanction facility, along with applicable rates and taxes, have to be paid by the petitioner to avail of the financial assistance. It was also mentioned therein that the communication by the bank to the petitioner did not create any binding/obligation on the bank to release any payment in favour of the petitioner by way of financial assistance provided the bank issued its final sanction letter to that effect and the terms thereof were duly accepted by the petitioner.

2. Subsequently, by an e-mail dated September 29, 2015, the respondent no.4 asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.14,27,850/-as processing fees including service tax. In the said e-mail. It was mentioned that if by any reason the sanction did not go through from the bank’s end, the bank would refund the same. The petitioner paid such amount pursuant to the bank’s e-mail.

3. Subsequently on November 6, 2015, respondent no.4 issued a fresh sanction of credit limits in favour of the petitioner. The relevant communication in that regard requested the petitioner to return to the bank the duplicate copy of the sanction communication along with annexures, duly signed by the authorized signatory of the petitioner-company and the guarantors as a token of the petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions, within 30 days of the letter, failing which it would be presumed that the petitioner was not interested in availing continuation of the facilities and the bank may, in its discretion, withdraw them without any further notice to the petitioner.

4. The said fresh sanction included an additional condition that processing fees would be non-refundable post-acceptance of the sanction letter and in the event of the applicant being unable to comply with the sanction conditions or refusing to take disbursal, on which event the amount paid as processing fees shall be forfeited. However, the petitioner issued a communication to the respondent no.4-bank on November 16, 2015 seeking refund of the processing fees of Rs.14,27,850/-against delay and non-receipt of final sanction letter. In the said letter, the petitioner clearly indicated that it was unable to accept the sanction on the grounds as mentioned therein. One of such grounds was that there had been inordinate delay of 50 days between interactive sanction dated September 24, 2015 and the sanction dated November 6, 2015 which, according to the petitioner, had jeopardized the petitioner’s financial planning and almost defeated the purpose of switching over from the petitioner’s present banker, that is, the State Bank of India. It was also mentioned, as a ground of refusing to accept the sanction, that there were several deviations from the interactive sanction dated September 24, 2015 and the final sanction, which deviations were indicated in detail in the communication dated November 16, 2015.

5. Subsequent to the refusal to accept the sanction on the part of the petitioner on the ground, inter alia, of deviation from the in-principle sanction originally granted, the petitioner sought a refund of the processing fees on several subsequent occasions.

6. However, by a further e-mail dated April 5, 2016, respondent no.4 intimated the petitioner that the processing fee was non-refundable as per terms of sanction.

7. The bank sought an intervention of the Managing Director and CEO of respondent no.4 by a representation dated July 25, 2016, thereby reiterating its grounds for not accepting the fresh