ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) Mr. Saha assisted by Mr. Raja Basu Chowdhury submits that the writ petitioners have come up against non-removal of the names of the writ petitioners from the list of wilful defaulters published by the Reserve Bank of India in their Website "CIBIL". He submits that alleged enlistment was made without granting them any opportunity of hearing. He also submits that the impugned action is contrary to the RBI Guidelines. He further submitted that in spite of direction for filing affidavits in this matter, except RBI, no affidavit-in-opposition was used by any of the respondents. It was further submitted by Mr. Saha that let the matter be reconsidered by the concerned authority upon giving them an opportunity of hearing.
(2.) Although on earlier occasion nobody was present for the respondents and I directed Mr. Saha's learned Advocate-on-Record to serve notices upon the respondents and on that basis notices were served on them. Learned Counsel representing the respondents are present. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the action of the respondents authorities are lawful and valid and there is no illegality whatsoever. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with the actions taken by the respondent banks. Learned Counsel for the RBI submits that the matter should be referred to arbitration and this Hon'ble Court should not entertain this writ petition because of availability of alternative efficacious remedy. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that on earlier occasion, when this matter was taken up, one learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court directed the concerned respondents to produce all relevant records showing that the writ petition was served with any notice or given an opportunity of hearing before passing such order. Although the matter was taken up on several occasions, but no such records were produced. This Court also allowed further adjournment to produce the records. On 9th February the matter was taken up, for hearing and the following order was passed: "In view of my earlier direction, all the respondents were served. Mr. Basuchoudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the writ petitioner has been classified as 'wilful defaulter' and according to him this is contrary to RBI Guidelines. He further submits that no opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioners before giving this title to the writ petitioner. Learned Advocates representing the respondent authorities submit that let this matter be decided afresh upon giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. Learned Advocate for Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. submits that they did receive any copy of the writ petition. Mr. Basuchoudhury submits that although the writ petition was moved in 2007, but CIBIL was added subsequently and a copy of the writ petition was sent to them, but there was no response from their side. Mr. Basuchoudhury further submits that on 14th June, 2010, the Hon'ble Justice I.P. Mukerji directed the other respondents to inform the Court whether the requirement of RBI Circular mentioned in their affidavit-in-reply, particularly, paragraph 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the concerned respondents have been carried out and it was further directed by His Lordship to produce all the records to show compliance with the requirement of the above noted circular. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, nobody produces any records showing service of notice. I, therefore, direct the parties to produce records on Monday, the 13.2.2012, when the matter will be taken up. Mr. Basuchoudhury shall serve a copy of the writ petition to the Advocate-on-Record of CIBIL forthwith. This direction is peremptory."
(3.) But, today, no such record was produced before this Court on the basis of the earlier direction.;