Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
KSR Infrastructure Projects - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & others – Respondents
W.P.No.25003 of 2023
Decided On : 03-06-2024
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Respondents are required to provide a reasoned decision for any adverse action against the petitioner. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner firm, previously a sole proprietorship, was compelled to seek the release of excess securities due to requests made for enhanced loan limits and securities exceeding sanctioned requirements, with no substantial response from the Bank despite multiple representations.
Findings of Court:
Respondents must reconsider the petitioner's request in accordance with law, ensuring proper reason is given for decisions made.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents' inaction regarding the petitioner's request constituted a violation of the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the obligation of the banking authorities to act promptly and reasonably, especially as the request pertains to excess securities that exceed the required coverage ratio, thereby impacting the petitioner’s ability to conduct business.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of, directing reconsideration of the request.
For the Petitioner: Ms. B. Aruna
For the Respondents:Smt. Kavita Yadav, Mr. Srinivas Chitturu.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks release of excess securities. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. bank's refusal lacks adequate reasoning. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court emphasizes prompt action by state functionaries. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. writ jurisdiction extends beyond fundamental rights. (Para 9) |
| 5. writ petition disposed; directive to reconsider. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Heard Ms. B.Aruna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner appearing on behalf of Petitioner, Smt. Kavitha Yadav, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Srinivas Chitturu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 to 7.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“........to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of not releasing excess securities over and above the sanctioned requirement of security coverage as causing impediment to the Petitioner in exercising their lawful right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) and in creating impediment in exercising their lawful right to alienate their property under Article 300A as bad arbitrary illegal and in violation of Article 19(1)(g) and 300 A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Bank to accept the Petitioner’s proposal for release of excess securities dt. 24.07.2023, and pass such further order or orders...”
3. PERUSED THE RECORD
a) This Court vide its order dated 13.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.25003 of 2023 observed as under :
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner approached this Court seeking prayer as under:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 of not releasing excess securities over and above the sanctioned requirement of security coverage as causing impediment to the petitioner in exercising their lawful right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) and in creating impediment in exercising their lawful right to alienate their property under Article 300-A as bad, arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 19(1)(g) and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondent Bank to accept the Petitioner's proposal for release of excess securities dated 24.07.2023.".
It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner vide her detailed representation dated 04.08.2023 addressed to the Branch Manager Baroda, Warangal requested for return of properties by Fifteenth of August so as to meet petitioner’s monetary needs by selling the property as requested by the petitioner in petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2023. The request of the petitioner vide representation dated 24.07.2023 pertained to return of properties excess over the sanctioned security coverage ratio. Petitioner vide the said representation gave certain property details and requested to return the said properties excess over the value of Rs.654.00 lakhs. The respondent is directed to consider petitioner's representation dated 04.08.2023 and 24.07.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, and pass appropriate orders duly communicating the decision to the petitioner.
List on 03.10.2023.
b) The proceeding BOB/ WARANG/ ADV/ 2023-2024, dated 11.10.2023 addressed to the Petitioner by Senior Branch Manager, Warangal Branch, in pursuance to the interim orders of this Court dt. 13.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.25003/ 2023 reads as under :
Your representation dt. 24.07.2023 and 04.08.2023 for release of the securities has been considered by the sanctioning authority in the background of order of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P.No.25003/2023.
The sanctioning authority has taken a decision based on Bank’s policies and commercial aspect of the account and decided that the securities cannot be released as requested in your representation.
4. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments mad
