H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the order Annx. 18 dt. 22.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.1 the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, "the DRAT" hereinafter), so far it relates to adverse findings against the officials of the petitioner bank and requiring the management of the petitioner bank to take administrative action against its officials, have been sought to be quashed.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 2 availed cash credit facility of Rs. 15 lac from Bhagat-Ki-Kothi Branch, Jodhpur of the petitioner bank on 22.01.2001 and executed the documents to that effect. The respondent No. 3 stood as a guarantor for repayment of the credit facility borrowed by the respondent No. 2, the borrower. However, on moving an application by the respondent No.2 the borrower, the cash credit facility was enhanced from Rs. 15 lac to Rs. 20 lac on 04.10.2001. The respondent No. 2 failed to repay the dues as per the terms of agreement and, therefore, the account of the respondent No.2 was classified as N.P.A., as per the Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, "the Act of 2002" hereinafter) was issued to the respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 challenged the said notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act of 2002 before a Division Bench of this Court by filing a writ petition, being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4590/2003, which came to be disposed of in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals v. Union of India and thereafter the petitioner bank preferred an application No. 6/2003 before the respondent No. 1 DRAT for recovery of a sum of Rs. 23,51,374.86p. Against the respondents No. 2 and 3. The recovery application filed by the petitioner bank came to be allowed by the respondent No. 1 DRAT vide order dt. 01.10.2004 and a recovery certificate for Rs. 23,51,374.96p. was issued in favour of the petitioner bank along with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 26.12.2002 till realisation vide Annx. 1, During pendency of the proceedings, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted a compromise proposal and offered to deposit Rs. 16 lac as full and final settlement of account, whereas on the relevant date the total outstanding, amount was Rs. 23.50 lac against them; however the petitioner bank considered the said compromise proposal keeping in view the heavy outstanding dues against the respondents No. 2 and 3 and rejected the same by Annx.2 dt. 09.02.2004. Being aggrieved by rejection of the compromise-proposal vide Annx. 2 dt. 09.02.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1298/2004, which came to he disposed of vide order dt. 09.04.2004 with a direction that if the respondents No. 2 and 3 deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank, the same would be considered by the petitioner hank sympathetically in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, vide Annx. 3. Instead of depositing 25% amount of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days, as directed by this Court vide order Annx. 3 dt. 09.04.2004, the respondents No. 2 and 3 filed an application seeking modification of the order Annx. 3 dt. 09.04.2004 and by the order dt. 10.05.2004, the order Annx. 3 dt. 09.04.2004 came to be modified, again directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to deposit 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days from the date of the order and to submit a fresh proposal to the petitioner bank. The modification was virtually the extension of the period as the other conditions including deposit of 25% of Rs. 17 lac within 15 days and permitting the respondents No. 2 and 3 to make a fresh proposal, remained intact. It appears from the record that on 25.07.2004, a sum of Rs. 4.25 lac by a cheque was deposited by the respondents No. 2 and 3 with the petitioner bank. Since respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to deposit the amount as directed by this Court within the stipulated period and, therefore, the petitioner bank was under no obligation to consider such proposal made by the respondents No. 2 and 3, more particularly without a proper deposit of the amount as per the directions of this Court and, therefore, the proposal so submitted by the respondents No. 2 and 3 came to be rejected by the communication dt. 13.07.2004 (Annx.6). The respondent No. 2 again challenged the order Annx. 6 dt. 13.07.2004 by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3057/2004 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 29.07.2004 vide Annx. 7. The order Annx. 7 dt. 29.07.2004 came to be challenged by the respondent No. 2 before a Division Bench of this Court by filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 544/2004, which came to he dismissed. After dismissal of the special appeal by the Division Bench, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 DRAT. 1 he respondent No. 1 DRAT, without considering the developments, as noticed in the preceding paragraph that on several occasions the respondents No. 2 and 3 were permitted to deposil certain amount vide various orders of this Court and thereafter submit fresh proposal which the respondents No. 2 and 3 failed to do so, yet the respondent No. 1 DRAT observed that at one point of time the respondent No. 2 offered a sum of Rs. 17 lac towards one time settlement and when such proposal was made before the High Court, the Bank agreed for accepting the said amount in full and final settlement of its claim but for some reasons the matter could not be settled. It was further observed by the DRAT that the respondent No. 2 is willing to pay Rs. 19 lac, however the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank denied the settlement made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and submitted that the decretal amount is more than Rs. 23 lac. Ultimately, by the order dt. 07.08.2006 (Annx. 16), the respondent No.1 DRAT directed that if the respondent No. 2 deposits Rs. 20 lac in all and deposits Rs. 15 lac (after adjusting Rs. 5 lac deposit earlier) upto 31.10.2006, the petitioner bank shall accept the same as full and final settlement of its claim. However that order came to be challenged by the petitioner hank before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No 6194/2006, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dt. 27.10.2006 by quashing the order Annx. 16 dt. 07.08.2006 passed by the DRAT. It appears from the pleadings that the matter has travelled to the DRAT and this Court on several occasions, more particularly at the instance of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and ultimately, by the order dt. 22.02.2007 (Annx. 18), the respondent DRAT passed an order as under "The callous attitude calls for appropriate administrative action against these officials . This Tribunal desires the Chairman/Managing Director of the respondent-bank to initiate appropriate administrative action against the concerned officials of the Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur Branch who have shown scant respect to this Tribunal." The respondent No. 1 DRAT further directed the present respondents No. 2 and 3 to move an application for initialing action against the officials of the petitioner bank under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in compliance thereof, the respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted an application under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 22 RDDB & Fls. Act, 1993 and rule 22 of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 for initiating action against the bank officials vide Annx. 9. Aggrieved by the observations made by the respondents No. 1 DRAT vide Annx. 18 dt. 22.02.2007, to the extent directing to intiate action against the officials of the petitioner bank, the instant writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The respondents did not file any reply to the writ petition.;