HC puts public interest above pvt

KOLKATA, April 16: Interest of an individual may, to some extent be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over public interest having an impact on the socio-economic drive of the country, Mr Justice Soumitra Pal of Calcutta High Court held while dismissing a writ petition of Core Ceramics Ltd and others praying for a declaration that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is arbitary and ultra vires the Constitution. It also challenged the notice under the Act issued by the Punjab National Bank on several grounds. Earlier, petitions were moved before the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Act and the court had upheld its validity, it was observed. Therefore, the challenge to the said Act fails, it was further observed. However, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the writ petition is still maintainable since the notice does not fulfil the conditions precedent under section 13(2) for invoking the provisions of the Act. The notice dated 3 November, 2003 issued under the Act is vague as it neither gives the details nor does it comply with the requirements of the Act, it was submitted. The notice classifying the account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) as per RBI guidelines, it was held. Once bank authorities classifies the account as NPA and issue such notice, the writ Courts have little or no role to play in such issue. The Supreme Court has approved the concept of greater or complete autonomy of the banks and financial institutions in settling doubts in assets classification and in recovering dues without intervention of the courts and tribunals, Mr Justice Pal held. It had stressed the setting up of appropriate internal mechanism for the settlement of disputes. The argument on behalf of the petitioner that the notice dated 3 November, 2003 is vague as it does not make a mention of the section, that is 13(2) is not tenable, it was held. It has been stated in the notice impunged that the account has been classified as NPA as per RBI guidelines. It was further held that the petitioner had understood the purport of the notice is evident from the reply dated 31 December, 2003 and therefore challenge to the impunged notice fails.
Tirthankar Mitra
The Statesman