ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the fourth respondent dated 25.01.2018 thereby approving the removal of the petitioner's name from the Bank for its panel of Advocate.

2.The petitioner is an Advocate and he was included in the panel of lawyers of the respondent Bank. While being so, the petitioner had issued a title investigation report on the application submitted for the loan by the borrower as having cleared and absolute title over the property. He also confirmed that the property has clear access. Based on the said report, the Banker had proceeded further in the matter and sanctioned the loan. Thereafter, the borrower committed default and the Banker had initiated the recovery process. At this juncture, the Banker found that the property is landlocked and is under agricultural cultivation. Therefore, the Banker had incurred a huge loss for the reason that the petitioner failed to examine the property properly. Therefore, the petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 27.10.2017, thereby calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation, failing which, the Banker will proceed as against the petitioner by lodging a complaint to the Bar Council for further action. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 02.11.2017. While considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, in the interregnum, the petitioner's name was removed from the Bank's panel of advocates.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on the show-cause notice dated 27.10.2017, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation. But no action has been taken after receipt of the explanation. Instead, the fourth respondent now had passed a stigmatic order which is affecting the petitioner's profession. It was passed without following any of the procedures laid down under the Master Circular, dated 01.07.2016 issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It is a non-speaking order without any reason. Before passing othe rder, the fourth respondent did not even consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before removal of his name from the panel. As per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner was served with a show-

cause notice to offer his explanation.

4.On perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent and on the submissions made by Mr.M.Ponniah, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would reveal that the petitioner had given a misleading title opinion. On the strength of the opinion, the fourth respondent had sanctioned financial assistance to the tune of Rs.39 crores to 4 groups of concerns by accepting the property which was shown as security to an extent of 2.21 acres. Therefore, a complaint was also lodged before the Central Bureau of Investigation and the same has been registered in RC/229/2019/A/005, RC/229/2019/A/006, RC229/2019/A/007 and RC/229/2019/A/008 dated 01.02.2019. That apart, due to the non- appearance of the petitioner, several suits were dismissed for default. It was not brought to the knowledge of the fourth respondent. Further, some of the suits were dismissed on the ground as uncontested. Therefore, the fourth respondent Bank suffered heavy loss and damage. Hence, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice and on receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his reply. In the interregnum, the continuation of the petitioner's name as the fourth respondent's panel would cause further loss and as such before passing the final order, the petitioner's name was removed from the fourth respondent's panel of Advocates. That apart, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner refused to hand over the bundles and change of vakalat for the cases which were entrusted to the petitioner by the fourth respondent. Therefore, while pending this Writ Petition, several suits filed by the fourth respo