AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias. C.P.,J
The petitioner submits that he had availed a loan from he respondent Bank. According to him, the entire amounts have been repaid in 36 instalments. He challenges Ext.P6 communication, which states that there is default on the part of the petitioner and they will be forced to take revenue recovery steps including publication of his name, address and photograph in the leading newspapers without further orders. Petitioner is aggrieved by the threat in Ext.P6 and has filed this writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Bank.
As held by this Court in Venu P.R. and another v. Assistant General Manager, State bank of India and others [2013(3) KHC 485] and the judgment of the Guwahati High Court in State Bank of India, Mumbai and another v.Sh.Lalsangbera (2015 KHC 2210) publishing a photograph in newspapers is violation of the fundamental rights particularly under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P6 cannot be allowed to stand in view of the above and Ext.P6 is accordingly quashed. It is up to the bank to take such steps, in accordance with law, to recover the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner, subject to the law of limitation.
The writ petition is allowed as above.