# Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Moradabad v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 852
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-21
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 22624 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prathama-u-p-gramin-bank-moradabad-v-u-o-i-ors-48355
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Consumer
Protection
Act,1986 - Complaint was filed in the year
1999
by
the
Consumer
-
sum
of
Rs.1,01,145/- with interest @ 15% was
ordered to be paid by the bank vide order
01.04.022 - State Consumer Redressal
Dispute Commission, U.P. Lucknow rejected
the appeal of the petitioner bank - No
appeal was filed by the bank before the
National
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Commission - Held - Petitioner bank has
chosen after three years to come before
this Court challenging the order date
24.05.2021 in spite of contesting the
execution proceedings
- order of the
Consumer Commission cannot be brought to
challenge by way of seeking a writ of
certiorari
-
writ
petition
against
the
issuance
of
notice
by
the
Consumer
Commission cannot be entertained and they
should appear before the Commission and
raise all objections - writ petition dismissed
as not maintainable with costs quantified at
Rs.20,000/- (Para 6, 7)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)04ILR A852
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Writ-C No. 22624 of 2021

Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Moradabad
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Vaish

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Deepak Singh, Ms. Punita Pandey,
Mrs. Shweta Pandey

Civil
Law
-
Consumer
Protection
Act,1986 - Complaint was filed in the year
1999
by
the
Consumer
-
sum
of
Rs.1,01,145/- with interest @ 15% was
ordered to be paid by the bank vide order
01.04.022 - State Consumer Redressal
Dispute Commission, U.P. Lucknow rejected
the appeal of the petitioner bank - No
appeal was filed by the bank before the
National
Consumer
Dispute
Redressal
Commission - Held - Petitioner bank has
chosen after three years to come before
this Court challenging the order date
24.05.2021 in spite of contesting the
execution proceedings
- order of the
Consumer Commission cannot be brought to
challenge by way of seeking a writ of
certiorari
-
writ
petition
against
the
issuance
of
notice
by
the
Consumer
Commission cannot be entertained and they
should appear before the Commission and
raise all objections - writ petition dismissed
as not maintainable with costs quantified at
Rs.20,000/- (Para 6, 7)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :-

1. N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. Vs Indo
Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC (Civ.) 555

2. Radha Krishan Industries Vs St. of H.P.
(2021) 6 SCC 771

3. M. Chinnamuthu (Dead) Vs Kamaleshan @
Shanmugam (Dead) Through LRS reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 209

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J. &
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. Shweta Pandey, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
and counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioners seeking following relief:

" Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
order dated 01.04.2002 (Annexure-2)
along with its execution Notice dated
24.05.2021
(Annexure-5)
issued
in
Complaint No.80/1999 by the respondent
no.2."

3. The compliant was filed in the year
1999
by
the
respondent
no.2.
The
consequential effect goes to show that even
after the judgment, the Consumer who has
succeeded before the Commission is unable
to get benefit of the judgment and decree
for a small amount which was ordered by
the Commission. The public bank as has
rushed to this Court challenging the notice
dated 24.05.2021 they could have very well
appeared before the Commission. The
Bank was the tenant. We are not going into
the factual data at this stage, the petition
lacks merit and bona fide.
4 All. Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank, Moradabad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
853

4. The averments made in paragraph 7
cannot be gone into as the judgment of the
Consumer/Conjugal
Commission
has
attained
finality.
The
petitioner
had
contested
the
litigation
sum
of
Rs.1,01,145/- with interest @ 15% was
ordered to be paid. The appeal was
preferred before the State Consumer
Redresssal
Dispute
Commission
U.P.
Lucknow. The State Consumer Redressal
Dispute
Commission,
U.P.
Lucknow
rejected the appeal of the petitioner bank in
the year 2018. The appeal was never filed
before the National Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission even till date. The
petitioner bank by way of a Gazette
Notification No. 853 dated 22.02.2019
issued by the Government of India, the
Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank came in force
on
01.04.2019,
on
account
of
Amalgamation of erstwhile Sarva U.P.
Vihar District- Moradabad. The petitioner
bank states that they did not challenge the
order
dated
15.02.2018
because
of
Pandemic. The Pandemic said to be only in
March, 2020. The amalgamation took place
in the year 2019 that one full year but no
such endeavors were made. The petition is
also belated. The order of the Consumer
Commission
cannot
be
brought
to
challenge by way of seeking a writ of
certiorari. The petition was filed without
disclosing the date on which the matter was
fixed on 30th July as the petition came to
be filed on 16th August, 2021.

5. In that view of the matter, we have
no other option but to dismiss the petition
with no costs. The R.B.I. guidelines would
not help the petitioner in this end in filing
this
writ
petition.
The
order
dated
01.04.2002 and the orders in appeal are
very clear and categorical despite that the
litigants cannot ripe the fruit of the decree
passed by both the competent authorities
which has attained the finality. We cannot
go into the findings of the appellate
authority, namely, The Consumer Dispute
Redresssal Commission.

6. The petition lacks merit and is
delayed. The appeal also has not been
satisfactorily explained, however, we do
not go in the same.

7. It is very clear that petitioner bank
has challenged the issuance of notice issued
by the State Consumer Redressal Dispute
Commission, U.P. Lucknow. We have
conveyed to the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the writ petition against the
issuance of notice by the Consumer
Commission cannot be entertained and they
should appear before the Commission and
raised all objections but the learned counsel
has conveyed that he has instructions to
press the petition on the merits for the
grounds which are alleged in the petition.

8. The ground taken, are as follows:-

"(a) During the period of running the
term loan account of respondent no.3 and 4
even till its final payment made by the
respondent no.3 and 4 never raised any
dispute regarding interest, but without any
reference to the petitioner bank had raised
consumer complaint before the respondent
no.2 against the petitioner bank and had
claimed refund of interest amount @ 18%
along with damages and cost etc.

(b) The complaint No.80/1999 was
filed by the Respondent no.3 and 4 before
the respondent no.2 and the same was
contested by the petitioner bank, as the
same was not maintainable and bank had
charged interest upon the term loan as per
agreed terms settled between the parties in
terms of loan agreement, furthermore the
interest charged upon the term loan of
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no.3 and 4 was as per the R.B.I.
guidelines.

(c) The respondent no.2 entertained
the complaint of the respondent no.3 and
4 and after hearing the counsel for the
parties directed to the bank to pay the
amount of interest to the tune of
Rs.1,01,145.00 along with interest @15%
since November, 1995, within a period of
30 days vide its order dated 01.04.2002.

(d) Being aggrieved with the order
dated
01.04.2002
passed
by
the
respondent no.2 the petitioner bank
preferred
an
appeal
bearing
No.1016/2002 in the name and style of
Prathama Bank (Through Chairman)
Head Office Moradabad and another Vs.
Smt. Pramila Gupta & Others; before the
State
Consumer
Redressal
Dispute
Commission U.P. Lucknow.

(e) The State Consumer Redressal
Dispute Commission U.P. Lucknow, was
failed to appreciate the contentions of the
bank and rejected the Appeal of the
petitioner
bank
vide
order
dated
13.02.2018.

(f) The respondent no.3 and 4 filed
an execution application on 12.02.2021
under Section 72(1) of The Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 in Complaint Case
No.80/1999 before the respondent no.s, in
which the respondent no.2 issued a show
cause notice dated 24.05.2021 which
received to the bank on 28.05.2021,
fixing therein a date of 7th June, 2021.

(g) The respondent no.2 upon the
date fixed on 7th June, 2021 but the
learned forum was vacant as such further
a date on 16th August, 2021 is fixed for
further hearing."

9. This is nothing else but the
abuse of process of the Court and,
therefore, also we are obliged to follow
the mandate of the Apex Court in N.N.
Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. Vs. Indo
Unique Flame Ltd. (2021) 2 SCC
(Civ.) 555.

10. Thus, even in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Radha Krishan Industries Vs.
State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771, will
not
permit
us
to
exercise
our
jurisdiction.

11. As there is full mechanism
available, the petitioner has chosen
after three years to come before this
Court
challenging
the
order
date
24.05.2021 in spite of contesting the
execution proceedings.

12. In this case, the Consumer
Commission dismissed the appeal. The
litigation is since 1999, the recent
anguish shown by the Supreme Court in
the Case of M. Chinnamuthu (Dead)
Vs.
Kamaleshan
@
Shanmugam
(Dead) Through LRS reported in 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 209, we also while
dictating this judgment feel that here is
a case where M.I.T. Bank is not even
going before the Commission and
rushes to the High Court and the man
without the fruits of the decree of the
Consumer Forum upheld by the U.P.
State Consumer Commission, hence, we
dismiss
this
writ
petition
as
not
maintainable with costs quantified at
Rs.20,000/- which is minimal for the
bank, to be deposited with the Registry
of the High Court within two weeks,
which should be transferred to the
Legal Services Authority for betterment
of the downtrodden people.

13. This petition lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
----------
4 All. M/S Supertech Precast Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
855
(2022)04ILR A855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 26666 of 2021

M/S Supertech Precast Tech. Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Khare, Saumya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Prashant Kumar

Industrial Law - U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976 -Section 12 -
Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 -
Section 41(3) - Allotment of land -
Authority demanded land premium and
lease rent as petitioner did not pay any
amount except payment of 10% allotment
money - petitioner's case that it was not
provided water connection for production
of precast by the Authority - Held -
petitioner will deposit Rs. 1 Crore with the
Authority and make the payment for
laying down the pipeline from STP to its
unit for making supply of STP water for its
industrial unit at the applicable rate -
Authority should lay down the pipeline
after receiving the cost and provide the
water to the industrial unit so that its cost
of manufacturing of concrete precast gets
reduced and industrial unit becomes
viable (Para 33)

B. Industrial Law - U.P. Industrial Area
Development Act, 1976- Section 12 -
Allotment of land - 90% of the premium
was to be paid with interest @ 12% per
annum - in case of default of payment,
penal interest @ 14% was to be charged -
default in payment - petitioner requested
for rescheduling and restructuring the
land dues and also payment of interest as
per bank rate - Held - interest @ 12% per
annum on premium compounding penal
interest @ 14% would make an industry
unviable - It could not be the purpose of
Authority to allow industries to be set up
and then make same unviable - Such a
high rate of penal interest besides the
interest @ 12% per annum on premium is
enough to bleed the industry and make it
unviable - matter is remitted back to the
Revisional Authority i.e. State Government
to reduce penal interest to 6% per annum
instead of 14% per annum on default of
payment of premium and allow the
petitioner to pay the premium along with
interest (12% + 6%, total 18% per
annum simple interest) in installments,
may be spread over to 5- 7 years (Para
33)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Gajraj & ors. Vs St.of U.P. & ors. (2011) ADJ
1 (FB)

2. M/s Gaursons Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.18684 of 2019

3. M/s Shakuntala Educational and Welfare
Society Vs St. of U.P. & ors. order Writ-C
No.28968 of 2018 dated 28.05.2020

4. Bikram Chatterji & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. Writ
Petition (C) No.940 of 2017

5. MC Mehta Vs U.O.I. Civil Writ Petition
No.4677 of 1985

6. Savitrai Devi & ors. Vs State (2015) 7 SCC 21

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Petitioner, a Company incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956 (for short "the Act, 1956"), has filed
the present petition, impugning the order
dated 25.11.2020 passed by the Additional