ALLAHABAD BANK vs SAWINDER KAUR on 6 February 2019

MA No.07/19 In OA No.535/18 Allahabad Bank Vs Sawinder Kaur

06.02.2019 Item No.71 Present: Shri M S Bajwa, counsel for the applicant bank This Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant bank for restoration of above titled OA on its original number. The counsel for the applicant bank has prayed for restoration of OA on the grounds that on 06.11.2018 this court has issued notice to the defendants for their appearance but summons were not collected by the counsel as such the same were not served upon the defendants. The mistake on the part of the counsel is neither willful nor intentional but due to the reason explained above. I have heard the counsel for the applicant bank and perused the record. Before the prayer of the applicant bank could be considered, I have perused the record and it is really surprising that the applicant bank who has filed this OA on 12.04.2018 was directed to serve the defendants vide order dated 06.11.2018 to be returned by 30.01.2019 but the applicant bank has failed to file service report and matter was dismissed due non compliance of order.

Before giving another opportunity to the bank, the amended provisions of the Act under Section 19(24) thrusts upon the Tribunal to make all efforts to complete the proceedings in two hearings and dispose of the case within 180 days from the receipt of the application whereas the concerned officer of the applicant bank itself has taken such a long time for admission and denial. On the one hand the legislation has made every efforts to speed up the process of proceedings to be completed within two hearings and to dispose of the OA finally within one hundred & eighty days, whereas on the contrary the bank itself has taken more than eleven months in completing the service, without explaining, why such delay occurred in providing the information. It seems that the higher official of the bank are not being apprised or made aware of such delay in these high stake cases by the negligent officers and therefore being enlightened by the duly quoted but not reported guide line of Hon’ble Apex Court:

…..The govt. departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for govt. departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.

……In our view it is the right time to inform all the govt. bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process.

…. All this shows sheer and utter negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the case and such a conduct of the appellant is highly reprehensible.

CJI-Justice A. K. Sikri & P.K. Jain, JJ

I have heard the counsel for the appellant bank and perused the record. Since, it is public institution and recovery of the institution is public money which could not be affected because of some irregularities on the part of the concerned officer. Hence, MA is allowed and order dated 30.01.2019 is hereby recalled and OA be registered at its Original Number. Copy of this order be placed in OA file. This file be tagged alongwith OA.

(Harcharn Singh), Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chandigarh Rajinder 06.02.2019