Nand Kishore & Anr v. The Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi & Anr

1) Issue notice. Mr. K.S. Parihar, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2/RBI. Mr. Parihar says he does not wish to file a counter affidavit.

2) There are two substantive prayers, which are sought for, in the instant writ petition. Via the first prayer, the petitioners seek issuance of a direction to the RBI to ensure expeditious disposal of the complaint dated 29.9.2017, filed with the 2018:DHC:974 respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman. The second prayer, which is, an alternative prayer, seeks a direction qua respondent nos.3&4. The direction sought is that respondent no. 3 and 4 should accept the soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes presented to them by the petitioners.

3) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that because respondent nos.[3] and 4 were not accepting the soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes presented by them in line with the Reserve Bank of India (Note Refund) Rules, 2009 and the Master Circular dated 3.7.2017, they were constrained to approach the respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman.

4) The record shows that two separate complaints have been filed against each of the banks, i.e., respondent nos.3&4. Insofar as the complaint lodged against respondent no.4 (ICICI Bank) is concerned, it appears that the petitioner no.1 has received the computer generated response which shows that the said complaint has been disposed of (see Annexure P-8). As regard to the other complaint, which is lodged against respondent no.3/PNB, the same has been registered but the petitioners say that they have not received any response as to what is the outcome of the complaint lodged with the said respondent.

4.1) Mr. Parihar submits that respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman is duty bound to dispose of the complaints once lodged, if not already disposed of.

5) I may also note that the aspect concerning whether or not a person could carry on the business of exchanging soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes etc. came up for consideration before this Court in the matter of: Ashok Kumar (Karta) & Ors. vs. The Deputy Governor & Ors, which was registered as W.P.(C)5026/2014. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2016 upheld the contention of the petitioners in that matter. Therefore, this issue, which is, whether or not petitioners herein can continue in the business of exchanging soiled/imperfect/mutilated notes, for the moment, stands covered by the said judgment.

6) Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the circumstances, the respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman is directed to dispose of the complaints filed by the petitioners expeditiously and, in any case, within ten weeks from today, if not already disposed of. Parties concerned will be called for hearing and thereafter a reasoned order will be passed by the respondent no.1/Banking Ombudsman, albeit, in accordance with law.

7) Writ Petition stands disposed of.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY,[7] 2018 vikas