|
CA. Tarun Ghia had filed a writ
petition in Mumbai High Court against the Reserve Bank of India and Others and
appearing in person successfully contended that the system of empanelment for
and allotment of bank audits should based on comparative merits and only
transparency can assure that such empanelment and allotment has done w.r.t.
merits.
We reproduce the copy of the
said judgment for the information of our members.
COPY OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY, ORDINARY ORIGINAL,
CIVIL JURISDICTION, WRIT PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2006
Tarun Jamnadas Ghia …..
Petitioner
vs.
1.Reserve Bank of India…Respondents
& Ors.
Petitioner in person.
Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar,
Senior Counsel with Mr. A. Munshi and Mr. Kunal Damle i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi
(Solicitors) for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Virag V. Tulzapurkar, Senior
Counsel with Ms. Soumay Srikrishna i/b. Kanga & Co.(Solicitiors) , for
respondent No.3. (ICAI).
CORAM : F. I. REBELLO & MRS. V.
K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
DATE : 26th July, 2006,
P. C.
-
Rule . Heard forthwith.
-
The Petitioner, who is a
member of the respondent No.3 had approached this Court for various reliefs.
The main submission on behalf of the petitioner was that there must be
transparency in the categorisation of firms who are selected pursuant to the
criteria fixed by the respondent No.1 and those names should be given as also
the category which they are allotted. It is also submitted that Reserve Bank
of India should be directed to display on its web site the names of the firms
to which audit has been granted by R.B.I. Some other grievances were also
raised. In our opinion those grievances would best be left for the respondent
No.3 as a body of its members to deal with the same and it would not be
appropriate for this Court to interfere in the internal working and affairs of
respondent No.3 or for that matter respondent No.1. Having heard learned
Counsel we are of the opinion that following directions will meet the ends of
justice and ensure transparency in the case of allotment of audit of banks by
respondent No.1:-
-
Respondent No.3 on
preparing the list in terms of the criteria fixed by the respondent No.1 to
put on its web site the names of the audit firms included in List 1, 2 and 3
as per the criteria fixed.
-
Respondent No. 3 also to
put on its web site the category allotted to the firms.
-
Respondent No. 1 after
allotment is done to put on its web site the names of the firm/firms which
have been allotted audit and the names of the bank/branches.
-
This process will be from
the ensuing financial year.
-
Rule made absolute
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
| (F. I. REBELLO, J)
|
(MRS. V. K. TAHILRAMANI,
J). |
TRUE COPY Sd/- Section Officer,
High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay.
|
