2000 Supreme(Raj) 363

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Honble R.R. YADAV & A.K. PARIHAR, JJ.
D.B. Sogani and others* - Appellant
Versus
Akhil Bharatiya Bank of Rajasthan Karmchari Sangh and others - Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 64 of 2000
Decided On : May 16, 2000

Headnote:Banking Regulations Act, Sec. 36-AA; Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, Sec. 18(1), Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Primarily filed writ petition for quashing of charge sheet and promotions – Later on converted into a Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability of Special Appeal against preliminary, interim or interlocutory order passed by Single Bench, which does not determine the rights of the parties finally – Jurisdiction of the Single Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Held – (1) After admission of Special Appeal and passing of an ad-interim stay order by the Division Bench do not debar the respondents to raise the question of its entertainability. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed in Writ Petition by Single Bench do not fall within the ambit of ``judgment used under Section 18(1) of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 – Scope of Appeal provided under Civil Procedure Code is different from that of Section 18(1) of the Ordinance – Special Appeal is not maintainable against such orders. (3) Single Judge, while exercising his jurisdiction under Article 226, is not expected to act and pass orders as a court of dispute setting between the parties – Being a senior partner of the Administration is to oversee the conduct of the parties against whom serious changes of misfeasance and malfeasance are averred – Constitutionally and legally justified to direct the Reserve Bank of India and Central Bureau of Investigation to ensure implementation of Section 36-AA of the Banking Regulations Act. (Paras 16,23 to 27)

       A writ or appeal is admitted if it is found at the stage of admission that it raises some debatable question of law and ad interim stay orders are passed at the stage of admission, if a prima facie case is established in favour of petitioner to the satisfaction of the Court, at the stage of admission. We are of the view that admission of writ petition, or appeal, or passing an ad interim stay order do not fall within the ambit of precedents and such admissions or grant of ad interim orders are subject to the result of final hearing of the writs or appeals as the case may be. (Para 16)

       ``A final judgment is an adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all matters in issue in the suit, whereas a preliminary or interlocutory judgment is a decree by which the right to the relief claimed in the suit is decided but under which further proceedings are necessary before a suit in its entirety can be disposed of.Save and except final and preliminary judgments thus defined, all other decisions are `orders and they do not come within the description of `judgments under the relevant issue of the Letters Patent. (Para 20)

       The investigation done by CBI uptill date of hearing in pursuant to the order dated 27.9.99. passed by the learned Single Judge, which throws a flood of light towards the disastrous scenario of financial irregularities. committed by responsible Directors, Officers against whom serious allegations of mala fides are averred in the writ petition, which lead us to believe that the order passed by the learned Single Judge under appeal, was to prevent the continuance of disastrous scenario of financial irregularities leading to economic collapse of the Bank, respondent No.3, with a view to ensure proper implementation of rule of law, as envisaged under Section 36-AA of the Banking Regulations Act. Misfeasance and malfeasance averred against some of the Directors and officers of the Bank is bound to have adverse impact and lack of probity, leading to high degree of corruption and fraud, prevailing in the functioning of the Bank, the respondent No.3, as revealed from CBI inquiry, which cannot be pushed under the carpet. The functioning of the Bank, the respondent No.3, has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, who have warned that future aid to underdeveloped countries may be subject to the requisite steps being taken to eradicate corruption. We have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge while exercising his jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not expected to act and pass order as a court of dispute settling between the parties but being a senior partner of administration was to oversee the conduct of the parties against whom serious charges of misfeasance and malfeasance were averred in the writ petition touching the deprivation of the source of livelihood of the members of petitioner union who are employees of the Bank respondent No.3. The learned Single Judge being senior partner of administration constitutionally and legally was justified to direct the RBI respondent No.2 to ensure the implementation of Section 36-AA of Banking Regulations Act as the acts of RBI respondent No.2 was found to be demurrable in initiating proceedings against Directors and other responsible officers of the Bank of respondent No.3. It is informed during the course of argument by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of RBI respondent No. 2 Shri Mathur that in compliance of order impugned dated 27.9.99 show cause notices are issued to delinquent Directors of the Bank and proceedings are initiated under Section 36-AA of the Banking Regulations Act. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge has committed no error in directing CBI to hold inquiry through a responsible officer right from the time when Bangur Group had started to purchase shares of Bank respondent No.3 and then controlled it as Managing Director/Directors and by nominee Director and as to how and where and in what manner the amount of Bank respondent No.3 was siphoned to the sister concerns of the Bangur Group and as how much amount is still due and how much returned or returnable for the purpose of criminal and civil consequences. From perusal of CBI inquiry it is revealed that a huge amount of Bank respondent No.3 has been siphoned. The interim report of CBI was not made available to this court on the date of final hearing, hence, we refrained to make comments on it and left it for consideration of learned Single Judge. (Para 27)