IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 40304 of 2018 PETITIONER:

SUPRIME STEEL INDUSTRIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR.M.K.ABDUL KAREEM, KUTTAMASSERY, THOTTUMUGHAM POST, ALUVA-683 105, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.C.ELDHO SMT.K.SINDHU ELIAS SRI.ANEESH JAMES SRI.JIJO THOMAS SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.

RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, CENTRAL SECRETARIATE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TGOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001.

4 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED.

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, BRANCH AT ANGAMALY NORTH, ANGAMALY PO, PIN-683 572, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SMT.K.RAJANI, CGC SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)

SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.VANIAH MARIA DOMINIC SRI.SAJI THOMAS SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI-SC, SMT.C.G.PREETHA-CGC, SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which is stated to be a firm engaged in manufacture of TMT (Thermo Mechanically Treated), steel, has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P13 communication issued to them by the Reserve Bank of India, where under, certain actions of the fourth respondent-South Indian Bank assailed by the petitioner, have been approved.

2. It appears that on account of the default committed by the petitioner, which they say is solely because of the effect of demonetization, the fourth respondent-Bank has initiated certain action under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity). The petitioner initially challenged these proceedings before this court and finally obtained Ext.P11 judgment, whereunder, eventhough the proceedings initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act was refused to be interdicted, the learned Division Bench noticed that a representation of the petitioner, shown as Ext.P6 therein, had not been considered by the fourth respondent-Bank before the recovery proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act and consequently, the Bank was directed to consider the same and take a decision thereon. The said representation related to the petitioner's request for additional working capital facility in terms of the Reserve Bank of India circular, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P7; but it appears that this representation was subsequently disposed of by the fourth respondent-

Bank declining that request made by the petitioner.

3. It transpires that the Reserve Bank of India has simultaneously issued Ext.P13 communication, wherein, they say that they cannot interfere in these matters since credit decisions are to be taken by the respective Banks based on their internal policy and commercial judgments, in which the Reserve Bank of India does not interfere. The petitioner says that this stand of the Reserve Bank of India is contrary to the directions in Ext.P11 judgment and he therefore prays that the same be set aside.

4. I have heard Sri.K.C. Eldho, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri. Chandran Pillai, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt. Ambily; learned counsel for the fourth respondent-Bank; Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri. Millu Dandapani, standing counsel for the Reserve Bank of India and the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala.

5. Sri. Chandran Pillai, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-Bank submits that the petitioner had only requested for additional working capital, allegedly because they were affected by th