THATI BALA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-48
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 11,2019

Thati Bala Krishna Appellant
VERSUS
State of Telangana Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CANARA BANK VS. DEBASIS DAS [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - (1.)We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals, which is M/s.REC Limited (formerly known as Rural Electrification Corporation Limited). We have also heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respective respondents/writ petitioners, who had instituted the Writ Petitions from which these Writ Appeals arise.
(2.)These intra-Court appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are against the interlocutory orders issued by the learned single Judge, whereby interim suspension of the further proceedings on the basis of the show cause notice has been issued.
(3.)The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant argued that the foundation of the impugned interlocutory order is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as the Writ Petitions do not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the writ appellant to issue the show cause notice. He argues that the jurisdictional facts on the basis of which the power to issue the show cause notice has been exercised is not a matter on which judicial review could be entertained to nip the entire further proceedings in the bud. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that there is no question of any bias that could be demonstrated because, fundamentally, in terms of the relevant provisions of the RBI Guidelines, the decision to issue a show cause notice is firstly an institutional decision.
Secondly, it has a multipeer mechanism whereby there is an intra institutional consideration of the need to issue a show cause notice. That being so, there is no foundation for any argument that the impugned action of issuing the show cause notice is actuated by bias, it is argued. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further argued that the reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the decision of the Apex Court in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, 2003 4 SCC 557 to be made applicable to the facts of the case, is illusory inasmuch as the application of the ratio decidendi of that decision does not lead to the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting writ petitioners points out that the order issued by the learned single Judge is more in the nature of an ad interim order and does not amount to a final interlocutory order in which rights of parties are decided and, therefore, the appeals under Letters Patent would not lie to the Division Bench. He further argued that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) having refused to come to the aid of the writ appellant and because the writ appellant had initiated proceedings in criminal jurisdiction against the writ petitioners, there is substantial foundation for the plea and the impugned action of issuance of show cause notice being actuated by bias.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.