Patna High Court
Upendra KishoreversusPunjab National Bank,
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The Court held that the IBA’s continued black‑listing of the petitioner beyond the five‑year period prescribed in its Handbook is ultra vires, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21, and therefore must be set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, a registered valuer under Section 34AB of the Wealth Tax Act, was de‑empanelled by Punjab National Bank (PNB) on 18 September 2019 following a show‑cause notice related to alleged valuation lapses in a loan that later became an NPA and attracted a CBI FIR. Subsequently, the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA) placed his name on its TPE Caution List, effectively black‑listing him and causing loss of valuation work from multiple banks. The petitioner contended that the IBA’s action violated natural justice, exceeded the five‑year maximum de‑empanelment period prescribed in Clause 1.4 of the IBA Handbook, and infringed his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. PNB argued that its discretionary power to de‑empanel was undisputed and that the pending criminal charges justified continued exclusion. The Court held that the five‑year limitation is mandatory, and continuation of the petitioner’s name on the caution list beyond September 2024 is ultra vires, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, directing the IBA to remove the petitioner’s name from the list and directing PNB to consider any fresh re‑empanelment application on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the inclusion of the petitioner’s name on the IBA TPE Caution List after the expiry of the five‑year de‑empanelment period violates constitutional principles of fairness and natural justice.
- Whether the IBA’s action is ultra vires the Clause 1.4 limitation in its Handbook on Policy Standards and Procedures for Real Estate Valuation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to re‑empanelment despite pending criminal proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 419, 420, 460, 468, 471
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- Wealth Tax Act, 1957 — s. 34AB
Subjects
- administrative blacklisting
- de‑empanelment
- valuation profession
- fundamental rights
- Article 14
- Article 19(1)(g)
- Article 21
- natural justice
- Indian Banks Association
- TPE Caution List
- proportionality
- time‑bound sanction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4131 of 2025
======================================================
Upendra Kishore, S/o Kaushal Kishore, Resident of- M.V.I Shashik, Near
Rajdhani Nagar, Keshari Nagar, Patna, Bihar- 800024.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, through its Chairman and Managing Director, Head
Office Plot No.-4, Sector-10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
2. Chairman and Managing Director, P.N.B., Head Office Plot No.-4, Sector-
10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075.
3. General Manager, P.N.B., Sastra Division, Head Office Plot No.-4, Sector-
10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
4. Assistant General Manager, P.N.B., Recovery Section, Zonal office R Block,
Chanakya Tower, Patna-800001.
5. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, New Market Branch, Maharaj
Complex, Fraser Road, Patna-800001.
6. Indian Bank Association, through its Chief Executive, World Trade Centre
Complex, 6th Floor Centre 1 Building, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuff
Parade, Mumbai-400005.
7. Chief Executive, Indian Banks Association, World Trade Centre Complex,
6th Floor Centre 1 Building, World Trade Centre Complex, Cuff Parade,
Mumbai-400005.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
8 15-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
a) For commanding the Respondent IBA to
remove the name of the petitioner from the
TPE caution list published on its website at the
behest of Respondent bank causing much
prejudice and hardship to the petitioner in as
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
2/12
much as most of the nationalized banks have
stopped giving any business(work of valuation)
to the petitioner because of his name
appearing in the TPE caution list of IBA and
also in view of the fact that as per the relevant
guidelines of IBA which has been adopted by
the respondent bank the maximum period for
which any valuer can be depanelled by the
bank is prescribed as 5 years and that too in
extreme cases in that view of the matter now
the effect of depanelment is wiped out. In the
present case by publishing the name of the
petitioner in TPE Caution list maximum
punishment of "blacklisting" has been meted
out to the petitioner without prescribing any
time limit which clear cut violation of
fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined
in Article 19(1)g of the Constitution of India as
also the relevant guidelines of the IBA and
Bank.
(b)For commanding the respondent bank to
communicate with the respondent IBA with
regard to removal of name of the petitioner
from TPE Caution list since the effect of order
18.09.2019 issued by the respondent bank,
whereby and whereunder the petitioner has
been depanelled from the panel of valuers, has
outlived its life in view of clause 1.4 of the
"Handbook on Policy Standards and
Procedures for Real Estate Valuation by Banks
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
3/12
and Housing Finance Institutions in India"
adopted by the Respondent Bank.
(c) For issuance of writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent bank to consider
the case of the petitioner for re-empanelment
as a valuer, since the maximum punishment
period i.e. 5 years as mentioned above has
elapsed.
(d) Forthwith Respondent bank may be
directed to start giving the work of valuation to
the petitioner as prior to passing of the letter
dated 18.09.2019 and subsequent publication
of the name of the petitioner in TPE Caution
List of IBA.
(e) For any other relief/reliefs that the
petitioner is entitled to in the fact and
circumstances in the case.
3. The factual matrix, as presented before this Court,
hinges on the professional standing of the petitioner, who is a
registered valuer under Section 34 AB of the Wealth Tax Act,
1957. The petitioner was empanelled as a valuer with
Respondent Punjab National Bank (PNB) on 06.05.2005.
4. The genesis of the dispute lies in a credit facility of
₹400 lakhs sanctioned by PNB to M/s Priyadarshi Commercial
Pvt. Ltd. in 2015. The said loan account was declared a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.06.2016. Subsequently, an FIR
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
4/12
(RC0932017S0002) was registered by the CBI in 2017
regarding the fraudulent mortgage. Though the petitioner was
not named in the FIR or the first chargesheet, his name surfaced
in the second chargesheet.
5. Consequently, the petitioner received a show-cause
notice from PNB on 20.08.2019 regarding valuation lapses.
Though the petitioner has submitted a written reply on
27.08.2019, the Respondent PNB issued a letter on 18.09.2019
de-empaneling the petitioner as a valuer. Shortly thereafter, on
04.10.2019, the petitioner's name was included in the IBA's TPE
Caution List.
6. The petitioner filed CWJC No. 21740 of 2019
challenging the de-empanelment, which was dismissed for
default on 02.01.2023. A subsequent restoration application,
MJC No. 1989 of 2023, was also dismissed on 08.09.2023.
Furthermore, CWJC No. 11454 of 2022, challenging his name
being included in the caution list, was also disposed of on
28.08.2023.
7. In the criminal proceedings, a coordinate Bench of
this Hon’ble High Court stayed the proceedings against the
petitioner in the CBI case vide order dated 13.08.2024.
Following the lapse of five years since his de-empanelment, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
5/12
petitioner has got issued a legal notice on 06.01.2025 seeking
re-empanelment. This request was expressly rejected by PNB on
21.01.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the IBA TPE Caution
List operates, in effect, as blacklisting, resulting in automatic
exclusion from empanelment across various banks and leads to
severe denial of professional livelihood.
9. It was submitted that no show-cause notice, filing
of written explanation, or opportunity of hearing was afforded
by the IBA before inclusion of the petitioner in the caution list,
rendering the action void ab initio and violative of the principles
of natural justice, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1989) 1 SCC 229 and State
of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, (1967) 2 SCR 625.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further
argued that the mandatory safeguards under the IBA Guidelines
were completely bypassed, rendering the action arbitrary,
unguided, and a colorable exercise of power, a principle
recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Patel Engineering
Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 257.
11. The core argument of the petitioner rests on
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
6/12
Clause 1.4 of the "Handbookon Policy Standards and
Procedures for Real Estate Valuation," which prescribes a
maximum period of five years for de-empanelment, even in
extreme cases. Since the petitioner was de-empanelled on
18.09.2019, the five-year period categorically expired in the
month of September 2024. Learned Counsel relying on Kulja
Industries Ltd. v. BSNL, (2014) 14 SCC 731, has urged that
administrative blacklisting must always be proportionate and
time-bound, and that indefinite continuation of the petitioner's
name beyond the period of 5 years operate as an impermissible
"civil death".
12. The petitioner contended that his role was strictly
limited to market valuation, without any allegations of
overvaluation, undervaluation, or mala fides. That the CBI
criminal proceedings have already being stayed by this Court,
therefore, the continuation of administrative punishment is
impermissible.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel representing
Punjab National Bank has strongly resisted the petition, arguing
that the legality and clarity of the de-empanelment letter dated
18.09.2019 has already been conclusively tested and decided by
this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
7/12
14. It is submitted that the dismissal of CWJC No.
21740 of 2019 for default, and the subsequent dismissal of the
restoration application in MJC No. 1989 of 2023 on 08.09.2023,
finalized the matter. The Respondents relied on the Division
Bench's ruling in MJC No. 1989 of 2023, which explicitly held
that the petitioner has no inherent right to be empaneled, and it
remains entirely within the discretion of the Bank to empanel or
de-empanel persons based on their satisfaction.
15. The Respondents further emphasized the gravity
of the pending criminal charges, noting that the petitioner is an
active accused in Special Case No.1/2018 (RC Case
No.25/2017) pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I, Patna and
facing serious charges under Sections 120(B) r/w 419, 420, 460,
468, 471 of the IPC and provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Given these facts, they assert that the writ
application is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
16. This Court has carefully heard the rival
contentions and perused the extensive materials placed on
record. The meaning, scope, and comparative understanding of
administrative blacklisting has been cogently explained by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in a catena of cases there is a
visible distinction between the legitimate protective measure of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
8/12
de-empaneling an erring professional and the unconstitutional
imposition of a perpetual "civil death."
17. This Court must first deal with the primary
defense raised by the Respondent Bank-that the present writ
petition is barred by the finality of the orders passed in CWJC
No. 21740 of 2019 and MJC No. 1989 of 2023. This Court finds
this reliance to be a patently erroneous application of the
doctrine of finality. A bare perusal of the pleadings reveals that
the petitioner is not seeking the quashing of the original de-
empanelment order dated 18.09.2019 on procedural grounds.
Rather, the petitioner has raised a fresh cause of action i.e the
expiration of the maximum permissible punitive period. The
order in MJC No. 1989 of 2023 affirmed the Bank's
discretionary power to de-empanel at that time; however, it did
not grant the Bank an unbridled license to ignore its own
temporal policy constraints indefinitely.
18. Turning to the merits, it is an undisputed factual
position that the "Handbook on Policy Standards and Procedures
for Real Estate Valuation", which governs the actions of both
the IBA and member banks, contains a specific stricture under
Clause 1.4. This clause explicitly states that even in extreme
cases of professional misconduct, the appropriate action
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
9/12
includes "removal from the panel for a period of five years".
19. Under similar circumstances the Hon’ble Apex
court in Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief Gen. Manager, BSNL,
(2014) 14 SCC 731, has held that any order of blacklisting or
debarment entails severe civil consequences and cannot operate
as a permanent 'civil death'. There is a visible distinction
between a proportionate, time-bound debarment and an
indefinite, perpetual ban. This understanding is further bolstered
by the dictums in Vetindia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of U.P.,
(2021) 1 SCC 804, and Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State
of U.P., (2020) 18 SCC 550, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has categorically ruled that an order of blacklisting bereft
of a specified time limit is legally unsustainable and patently
erroneous. The administrative edict of de-empanelment,
therefore, cannot be allowed to hang over the head of a citizen
in perpetuity, as such an impassive approach falls severely short
of the constitutional ethos of fairness enshrined under Articles
14 and 19(1)(g).
20. The petitioner's de-empanelment commenced on
18.09.2019, it mathematically follows that the five-year ceiling
definitively expired in the month of September 2024. As settled
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, administrative blacklisting must
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
10/12
be proportionate and time-bound. Indefinite continuation of the
petitioner's name on a centralized Caution List, beyond the
policy-mandated maximum period, is inherently
disproportionate and falls short of constitutional fairness under
Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, which inevitably leads this Court
to conclude that the restriction must be lifted.
21. Furthermore, this Court cannot ignore the fact that
the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 13.08.2024
in Cr. Misc. No. 11906 of 2024, has already stayed the CBI
proceedings against the petitioner. The Court has recorded a
prima facie view that valuers cannot be routinely prosecuted
merely for rendering a valuation. When the underlying criminal
liability is itself under judicial suspension, the continuous
administrative suffocation of the petitioner’s livelihood solely
based on those very same allegations is an arbitrary exercise of
power.
22. The administrative actions of the Respondents, in
refusing to recognize the expiration of the maximum five-year
de-empanelment period, appear clearly insensitive to the severe
civil consequences suffered by the petitioner. The decisions of
this Court as a participant in the legal process must reflect the
ethos of fairness and the sound application of prescribed
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
11/12
regulatory guidelines.
23. Hence, the instant writ petition is allowed. The
continued retention of the petitioner's name on the TPE Caution
List is set aside on account of being ultra vires the five-year
limitation prescribed in Clause 1.4 of the governing Handbook.
24. This Court deems it expedite to issue the
following directions:-
(i) The Respondent Indian Banks'
Association (IBA) is directed to forthwith
remove the name of the petitioner, Upendra
Kishore, from the TPE Caution List published
on its website.
(ii) Respondent Punjab National
Bank is directed to immediately formally
communicate this order to the IBA to facilitate
the said removal.
(iii) The Respondent Bank shall
independently consider any fresh application
submitted by the petitioner for re-empanelment
strictly on its own merits and current eligibility
criteria, uninfluenced by the expired 2019 de-
empanelment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4131 of 2025(8) dt.15-05-2026
12/12
25. It goes without saying that the observations made
by this Court through this judgment are specifically in the
context of administrative blacklisting policies, and they shall not
be taken to be any opinion on the merits of the ongoing CBI
criminal trial, which shall proceed independently in accordance
with the law.
26. All pending I.As., if any, are deemed to have been
disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.