JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by a legal professional who was, inter alia, on the panel of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, which merged with the State Bank of India (SBI) on April 1, 2017. Before the said merger, the petitioner had all along acted as an empanelled lawyer without any complaint having arisen against the petitioner from any quarter.

2. For the first time in the year 2018, the petitioner learnt of a letter dated January 2, 2014 issued by the then State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur to the Indian Bankers’ Association (IBA) with an advice to place the petitioner’s name in the IBA Caution List of Third Party Entities involved in frauds. Upon the petitioner making query, the Deputy Chief Executive, IBA informed on November 15, 2018 that such listing was done on the report of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and had been circulated to all members of the IBA vide communication dated January 16, 2014. The petitioner was informed by the IBA that the SBI (respondent no.1) was to be approached for removal of his name from the list. Although the petitioner made several correspondences, the petitioner was not informed about the reason of the caution listing. The Assistant General Manager of the SBI asked the petitioner by a Letter dated February 26, 2020 to disclose the reason for his name being included in the list and other relevant details.

3. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed that in view of three Title Investigation Reports (TIRs) issued by the petitioner, the bank was examining the petitioner’s contention and would revert back in due course, which the bank did not do.

4. The petitioner served a Demand Notice dated November 17, 2020 requesting removal of his name from the caution list.

5. Challenging such inclusion, the petitioner moved a writ petition bearing WPA 11563 of 2020 which was allowed on February 19, 2021, setting aside the Caution List dated January 2, 2014 and the circulation of the same dated January 16, 2014 insofar as those related to the petitioner.

6. The IBA was directed to duly circulate the said order and the removal of the petitioner’s name from the said list among its members within 30 days. Costs were also awarded in favour of the petitioner.

7. Prior to the filing of WPA 11563 of 2020, however, the petitioner had moved the present writ petition bearing WPA 26580 of 2008, challenging an enquiry report submitted by the respondent no.3, that is, the Assistant General Manager, Law of the SBI and the order dated July 21, 2005 passed by the Chief General Manager, SBI.

8. The context of the challenge was an order dated July 14, 2005 passed by the Kolkata Debts Recovery Tribunal to in OA/128/2008 (SBI Vs. Bijoy Kumar Agarwala and others) wherein it was recorded that the Branch Manager of the SBI, Local Head Office, was appointed as Special Officer to inspect securities as detailed in the case by order dated January 20, 2005 that the Special Officer had not given any report so far and it appeared that the bank was not interested for suitable orders on the interim reliefs. It was further observed by the Presiding Officer of the DRT that it was sheer negligence and not proper prosecution of the case and it appeared that the Branch Manager was helping the defendants to create grounds that the securities be removed.

9. It was further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the CGM of the Bank that he should report why the Tribunal’s order was not implemented and also the then present position of the securities not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, for effective orders.

10. On the right hand margin of a copy of the said order, headed “Office Action with date and dated signature of the parties when necessary”, it was endorsed that the AGM (Law) was to immediately refer with details. The said endorsement was dated July 14, 2005.

11. The next endorsement of the AGM (Law) recorded “change the Advocate”. “Blacklist him how many other cases are with him”. The