Writ jurisdiction over regulator action upheld despite parallel tribunal proceedings; no breach of natural justice was found.

A High Court can direct a public regulator to consider or exercise its statutory powers under Article 226 when there is an alleged failure to act, and the existence of parallel proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT does not bar such relief where those forums cannot grant the same remedy against the regulator. The Court also rejected the natural justice challenge, finding that both maintainability and merits had been addressed before the Single Judge and that the appellant had in fact been heard. The appeal was dismissed, and the order sustaining maintainability and consequential directions was upheld, with liberty to raise remaining contentions in the writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to exercise its statutory powers against an NBFC was maintainable despite pending proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT. (ii) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for violation of natural justice on the ground that the appellant was not heard on merits before directions were issued.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition seeking a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to exercise its statutory powers against an NBFC was maintainable despite pending proceedings before the NCLT and NCLAT.

Analysis: The relief sought in the writ petition was a mandamus to compel the regulator to act on alleged regulatory violations by the NBFC. The Court held that where a public authority is vested with statutory powers and fails to exercise them, a writ court can issue directions under Article 226 to secure performance of that duty. It also held that the pending company law proceedings did not oust writ jurisdiction because the tribunals could not grant the same relief against the regulator under the Reserve Bank of India Act, and the appellant was estopped from taking a contrary stand after having relied upon RBI action in the company law proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the challenge to the impugned order on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for violation of natural justice on the ground that the appellant was not heard on merits before directions were issued.

Analysis: The record showed that the parties had addressed both maintainability and merits before the Single Judge. The Court found that the appellant's grievance of denial of hearing was not borne out, and that the impugned order was passed after considering the rival submissions already placed before the Single Judge.

Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was established.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the order upholding maintainability and the consequential directions was sustained, while leaving the parties at liberty to urge their remaining contentions before the writ court in the main proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A High Court may compel a public regulator to exercise statutory powers under Article 226 where there is a failure to act, and the existence of parallel proceedings before another forum does not bar such writ relief when that forum cannot grant the same relief against the regulator.

---