HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
K. Marimuthu - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi & Others - Respondents
W.P.No. 13832 of 2013
Decided On : 31-03-2023
Writ Petition - Empanelment of Advocates in Nationalised Banks - RBI Circular No. DBOD. No. BP. BC. 62 / C. 469 (W) - 91 dated 4th January 1991, withdrawn by RBI Circular No. DBOD.No. inf.BC. 48/11.01.009/2006-07 dated 18th December 2006 - Empanelment procedures not in compliance with Constitutional mandates - Directions issued to review and amend procedures
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition questioning the validity of the withdrawal of the RBI circular in the matter of appointment of Panel Advocates for Nationalised Banks and sought directions for empanelment of Advocates from SC/ST/OBC communities. The petitioner alleged deprivation of opportunity for empanelment despite applications to the Banks.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the empanelment procedures for Lawyers in Nationalised Banks were not in compliance with Constitutional mandates, denying equal opportunity to eligible candidates, especially from SC/ST/OBC communities. The Court directed the Banks to review and amend their empanelment procedures within four months.
Issues: The issues revolved around the withdrawal of RBI circular on empanelment of Advocates, lack of compliance with Constitutional mandates, denial of equal opportunity, and the need for transparent and fair empanelment procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the prevailing empanelment procedures for Lawyers in Nationalised Banks were not in compliance with Constitutional mandates, specifically Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the need for transparent, fair, and objective empanelment procedures providing equal opportunity to eligible Lawyers, especially from SC/ST/OBC communities.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with directions for the Banks to review and amend their empanelment procedures within four months, ensuring compliance with Constitutional mandates and principles of equal opportunity. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire files pertaining to the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent herein in No DBOD.No.inf.BC.48/11.01.009/2006-07 dated 18th December 2006 specifically in concern with the withdrawn of the Sl.No.35 of the circular therein in connection with the circular No DBOD No. BP. BC. 62/C. 469(W)-91 dated 4th January 1991 and quash the very same Sl.No.35 of the said circular alone as arbitrary, irrelevant, unreasonable, and violative of Art. 14, 15 and clause (1), (4), (4-A) of Art.16 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 7th to 34th respondents to conduct survey on the available Panel of advocates of their Bank at present and report the SC/ST/OBC advocates out of the available strength at present with its percentage of each category wise advocates in all India level / State level / Region level / Zonal level according to their administrative structure and consequently direct the 7 to 34 respondents and other public sector banks to take special endeavor / special drive shall be made to encourage advocates belonging to the SC/ST/OBC by enrolling them in the panel and allocating the work to them as required by the clause 2.1 and to ensure the experience for panel advocate as 5 years as fixed in clause 1.2 of the said RBI Circular No. DBOD. No. BP. BC. 62 / C. 469 (W) – 91 dated 4th January 1991, and consequently direct them to ensure themselves with suitable Board approved policies / procedures for substituting the same as required in the Circular No. BC.48 / 11.01.009 / 2006 – 07 dated 18th December 2006 and consequently direct the 7 to 34 respondents and other public sector banks to include the SC/ST/OBC advocates in each branch including the Stressed Assets Recovery Branches of the Public Sector Banks, irrespective of their volume of work and need of advocates and consequently direct to allot the alternative and equal cases including the DRT / DART Court cases and consequently direct to ensure pay equal fees to the SC/ST/OBC advocates along with other advocates and consequently direct to maintain proper Rotation Register for distribution of cases evenly and consequently direct to create uniform format of application for the empanelment of advocates with the specific reference of SC/ST/OBC advocates particulars and consequently and strictly direct the 7 to 34 respondents Banks and other public sector banks to avoid further escapism, delay and domination of monopoly of certain interested community advocates and interested advocates of the officials of the said banks in their panel and consequently direct the 1st respondent to convene a monitoring Committee comprising the 2nd to 5th respondents in All India level and state level for its strict and effective implementation and consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondent to conduct special investigation on this subject independently on their own way in all India level with the 7 to 34 respondents Banks and other public sector banks under Art.338 and under Art.338A of the Constitution respectively and submit the special report to the President of India and to the Prime Minister of India to take necessary follow up steps for the adequate representation of panel of advocates in the Nationalised and Public Sector Banks.)
The Writ of Certiorified Mandamus has been instituted questioning the validity of the withdrawal of the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in the matter of appointment of the Panel Advocates for the Nationalised Banks in All India Level / State Level / Regional Level / Zone Level. Further directions are sought for to empanel the Advocates by following the established principles of law and to provide adequate representations to the candidates belongs to SC/ST/OBC Communities.
E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [(1974) 4 SCC 3]
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in [(1978) 2 SCR 621]
Ramana Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority reported in [1979 AIR (SC) 1628]
D.S.Nakra Vs. Union of India reported in [1983 (1) SCC 305]
Dwarkasas Marfatia Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay reported in [1989 (3) SCC 293]
Som Raj and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in [(1990) 2 SCC 653]
Neelima Misra Cs. Harinder Kaur Paintal and Others reported in [(1990) 2 SCC 746]
Sharma Transport Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in [(2002) 2 SCC 188]
Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1991 (1) SCC 212]
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(1980) 4 SCC 1]
Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay [(1989) 3 SCC 293]
Mahabir Auto Stores and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 752]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for empanelment procedures for Lawyers in Nationalised Banks to comply with Constitutional mandates, ensuring transparency, fairnes....
The empanelment of lawyers by banks is a professional engagement and not a civil post, and therefore, not governed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Banks have the discretion to select empa....
The petitioners, a private limited company and its principal officer, were not entitled to be represented by advocates/chartered accountants before the Identification Committee of the SBI, as the mas....
The court directed that a PIL challenging government panel appointments be treated as a formal representation, allowing the competent authority to address grievances and frame transparent empanelment....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.