Heard.

1. Issue raised in this petition as to whether it is within the propriety of the Bank to publish a photograph of defaulter in newspaper in the event of failure on the part of such borrower(s) is no more res integra so far as this High Court is concerned. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ku. Archana Chauhan v. State Bank of India [AIR 2007 MP 45], has held :

“2. With respect to the photographs, in the opinion of this Court publication of photographs of the borrowers cannot be said to be impermissible mode. Action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal in any manner. It cannot be said to be defamatory publication made, hence, I find no ground to quash the publication (P-3).”

2. Though the judgment in Ku. Archana Chauhan (supra), is reportedly distinguished by the Calcutta High Court in Ujjal Kumar Das v. State Bank of India [Writ Petition No.10315(W) of 2013], wherein learned Judge observed --

“20. In my humble view, the opinions recorded in the paragraph extracted supra are neither backed by any reason nor can be supported with reference to any provision of the SARFAESI Act or the rules framed thereunder. It is settled law that broadly, every judgment of a superior courts has three segments, viz. (i) the facts and the point at issue;

(ii) the reasons for the decision; and

(iii) the final order containing the decision. The principle on the basis whereof a legal issue is answered forms the ratio decidendi of a judgment. It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the conclusion that operates as a precedent. The principle, on the basis of which His Lordship reached the opinions as recorded, is conspicuous by its absence. Opinions, without anything more, cannot be of much persuasive value and hence I am left with no other option but to decline to be ad idem with the same.

……

24. Law is well settled that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of its subjects unless they could point to some specific rule of law authorizing the act of interference. It is also well settled principle of law that when a stature requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone or not at all. I proceed to hold on the said principle that a secured creditor is not free to take any action it wishes for enforcing its security interest; it is empowered and authorized to take such action that the statute permits it. There is absolute lack of legislative sanction in relation to publication of photographs of defaulting borrower(s)/guarantor(s). The SARFAESI Act and the rules framed thereunder not having conferred any power on the secured creditors to publish their photographs, they cannot resort to such action on the ground that publication of photograph is not prohibited. For the secured creditors, the test is not as to whether publication is prohibited by the statute but whether such publication is permitted by it. Prohibition has to be inferred in the absence of express authorization. If the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel for the secured creditors were accepted, the secured creditors would have the carte blanche to invent any method for recovery of their secured debt throwing asunder the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.”

3. However, of late, a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay had an occasion to consider the issue in D.J. Exim (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India [Writ Petition (L) No.2808/2013; decided on 28.11.2013]. The Division Bench after taking into consideration the decision in Ujjal Kumar Das (supra), and Writ Petition No.10864/2013 and Writ Petition No.20686/2013; decided by Kerala High Court of deprecating the practice of publishing the photograph of defaulter in newspaper and the decision in Ku. Archana Chauhan (supra), and K.J. Doraisamy v. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India [2006(4) MLJ 1877:(2007) 136 Comp. Case 568 Madras], wherein action of publishing photograph of defaulter in the newspaper have been up