The arbitrary inclusion of a person's name in a caution list without due process constitutes a deprivation of fundamental rights.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction, directing the first respondent to remove the name of 'A.Arivazhagan' from the IBA Third Party Caution List.

2.The petitioner is a Registered Valuer with the Institution Valuers, India and also certified by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The second respondent's Valandhur Branch accepted the petitioner's valuation report of P.Jeyaraj and Ammsamani in the year 2011. After a period of 10 years, ie., in the year 2021, the second respondent Bank issued notice seeking clarification for the valuation submitted for the said P.Jeyaraj and Ammsamani. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted explanation. However, the petitioner's name is published in the caution list of the first respondent's official web page. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this present Writ Petition with the above prayer.

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4.The similar issue has already been dealt with by this Court in the case of NR Rahuram & Co., Vs. Indian Bank-s Association and ors., in W.P.No.17780 of 2017 order dated

30.01.2020, which held as follows :-

“?13. However, the first respondent based on the complaint received from the second respondent bank, with regard to the irregularities committed by the petitioner in the valuation of the properties, the first respondent has hosted the petitioner-s name in the caution list in their website affecting his business interest with other member banks of the first respondent association. This will amount to deprivation of fundamental rights of the petitioner, to carry on his business as a valuer with other banks. Insofar as other banks are concerned, there is no finding against the petitioner that he has indulged in unfair practices, guilty of professional misconduct, violated code of ethics and professional practice. Even as per clause 1.4 of the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India, the said requirement is mandatory. In the case on hand, since there is no finding that the petitioner has committed any of the aforementioned irregularities, with regard to other banks, the hosting of the petitioner-s name in the caution list of the first respondent website is arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

14. Clause 1.4 and 1.5 of the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India reads as follows:

?1.4 Removal In extreme cases where the valuer has been found to be indulging in unfair practices, guilty of professional misconduct, violating the code of ethics and professional practice, he shall be removed from the panel. The procedure to be followed by the banks / housing finance institutions shall comprise of the following steps :

- issue of show cause notice - hearing - appropriate action, including removal from the panel for a period of five years, if charges are found serious

1.5 Re-Empanelment Valuers once removed from the panel of any bank or housing finance institution could be re-empanelled again after a specified period, based on the recommendations of the bank Conflict Resolution Committee. Names of valuers removed shall be reported to the Indian Banks? Association which in turn shall place the names on its caution list.? 15. Further, even under the appointment letter issued by the second respondent, there is no reference that the petitioner has been put on notice about the handbook on policy standards and procedures for real estate valuation by banks and housing finance institutions in India which the first respondent relies upon.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court directs the first r