Calcutta High Court
Vikash Agarwal vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors on 26 May, 2026
OD - 1
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/185/2026
VIKASH AGARWAL
VS
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN
Date :26th May, 2026.
(Vacation Bench)
Appearance:
Mr. SabyasachiChaudhury, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. S. Kajaria, Adv.
Ms. Saloni Kumar, Adv.
... for the writ petitioner
Mr. AmartaGhose, Adv.
Mr. Malay Seal, Adv.
Mr. SouryadeepGhose, Adv.
Ms. Arundhita Banerjee, Adv.
... forthe respondent no.2
1. The Court:-The writ petitioner and the respondent no. 2 bank are
represented by theirrespective counsels.
2. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner has prayed for
issuance of appropriatewrit/writs against the respondent no. 2 authority
commanding them to recall and/or revoke and/or cancel the impugned
order dated April 9, 2026.
3. At the time of hearing,Mr. Chaudhury, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, at the very outset, draws attention
of this Court to page nos. 259 to 269 of the instant writ petition (Annexure
P-12) being a copy of the order impugned dated April 9, 2026. It is
2
submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that on careful perusal of the impugned order
dated April 9, 2026 it would reveal that such impugned order was passed on
April 9, 2026 whereas the effect of the said order was given on and from
March 18, 2026. It is further submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that giving effect
of the said impugned order retrospectively is beyond the RBI guidelines.
4. At this juncture, Mr. Chaudhury files the supplementary affidavit after
serving a copy of the same to the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2
which is taken on record. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that on perusal
of page no. 7 of the supplementary affidavit, as filed today, it would reveal
that the date of reporting with regard to the alleged fraud of the writ
petitioner was 26.03.2026 while the said order impugned was passed much
thereafter i.e. on April 9, 2026. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that the
action of the respondent no. 2 authority thereby placing the writ petitioner
in the portal of the RBI as fraud, is prior to the passing of the reasoned
order dated April 9, 2026 which shows that respondent No. 2 Bank was pre-
determined to cause prejudice to the writ petitioner by passing the
impugned order.In course of his submission, Mr. Chaudhury further draws
attention of this Court to page no. 50 of the instant writ petition being
clause 8.4.3 of the guideline dated July 15, 2024,as issued by the RBI. For
better appreciation of the said clause of the said guidelines, this Court
proposes toquote clause8.4.3 of the said guidelines which is as under:-
“8.4.3 The „date of classification‟ is the date when due approval from the
competent authority has been obtained for such classification, and the
reasoned order is passed.”
3
3. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury that the “Date of Classification” of
the writ petitioner as a fraud ought to have been construed when due
approval from the competent authority has been obtained regarding the said
classification and the reasoned order is passed.It is argued by Mr.
Chaudhury that on bare perusal of the impugned order dated April 9, 2026
it would nowhere reveal as to when any approval regarding such
classification has been obtained from the competent authority and on the
contrary, it would reveal further that the impugned order has been passed
only on April 9, 2026 i.e. much before the date of reporting that is
26.03.2026 as available from the record. It is thus submitted by Mr.
Chaudhury that considering the action, as reflected from the impugned
order passed by the respondent no. 2, interim relief may be granted in terms
of prayer (f) of the instant writ petition.
4. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 2 submits before this Court that no case has been made out
on behalf of the writ petitioner for obtaining interim relief. It is further
submitted by Mr. Ghosh that he has been served with the copy of the
supplementary affidavit only in course of hearing. It is further submitted by
Mr. Ghosh that from the impugned order it would reveal that though
reasoned order was passed on April 9, 2026, however its effect was given
from March 18, 2026 in terms of the guidelines of the RBI, therefore, no
case has been made out for obtaining interim relief as prayed for.
5. On careful perusal of the entire case record, this Court should
considers that for effective adjudication of the instant writ petition, affidavits
are required to be exchanged.
4
6. In view of such, this Court directs the respondent no. 2 authority to
file his affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks; replythereto, if any, be filed
within one week thereafter.
7. Considering the prima facie case made out by the writ petitioner, also
considering the fact that so far as the balance of convenience and
inconvenience is concerned, the convenience lies in favour of the writ
petitioner and keeping in mind that in the event the impugned notice is
allowed to stand, the writ petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury
which cannot be compensated in terms of money, this Court directs that let
therebe stay of the operation of the impugned order dated April 9, 2026 till
last date of July 31, 2026 or until further order, whichever is earlier.
7. Liberty to mention.
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
S.Mandi
AR (CR)
