De-panelment of approved enforcement agent upheld where no enforceable right to continued empanelment was shown.

De-panelment of an approved enforcement agent was treated as valid where the petitioner could not show any contractual or legal right to continue on the panel. The High Court noted that the petitioner's correspondence with the bank contained intemperate and inappropriate language, which was not denied, and held that removal from the panel was not unlawful merely because no prior notice or hearing was given in the absence of an enforceable entitlement. Authorities on blacklisting and arbitrary state action were distinguished because they did not apply to this de-panelment setting.

---

---

Issues: Whether de-panelment of an approved enforcement agent without prior notice or hearing was vitiated for breach of natural justice, and whether empanelment conferred any enforceable right to continuation.

Analysis: The challenge to de-panelment was examined in the backdrop of the petitioner's correspondence with the Bank, which showed intemperate and inappropriate language and was not denied by replication. The petitioner failed to show any contractual or legal entitlement to continue as an approved enforcement or resolution agent. In the absence of a legal right arising from any agreement, the Bank's decision to remove the petitioner from the panel could not be treated as unlawful merely because no prior notice was issued. The authorities relied upon on blacklisting and arbitrary state action were distinguished on the footing that they did not concern de-panelment in the present factual setting.

Conclusion: The de-panelment was held to be valid and not vitiated by violation of natural justice; the claim to continued empanelment was rejected.

---