In a strongly worded judgment, the Delhi High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the NGO Infrastructure Watchdog, which accused Punjab National Bank (PNB) and Bank of Maharashtra (BoM) of undervaluing Delhi’s iconic Hyatt Regency Hotel while approving loan settlements. The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul ruled that the petition was “speculative and ill-informed,” warning that such cases could shake confidence in the banking system.
“The courts must be careful not to set the investigative ball rolling on the basis of conjecture,” the Bench said while declining to issue even a notice in the case.
Background
The petitioner, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, alleged that Asian Hotels (North) Pvt Ltd (AHN), owner of Hyatt Regency at Bhikaji Cama Place, undervalued the property while negotiating one-time settlements (OTS) with BoM and PNB in 2024. The NGO claimed this undervaluation led to a “loss to the public exchequer.”
According to the petition, earlier valuations pegged the hotel’s worth at around ₹2,600 crore, but the figure was later revised to about ₹970 crore. The petitioner further alleged links between AHN’s financing partners and political personalities, arguing that these “connections” showed the asset was not genuinely distressed.
Despite filing complaints to the Finance Ministry, CVC, and CBI in March 2025, the NGO said no action was taken, prompting it to move the High Court seeking quashing of BoM’s OTS and a probe by central agencies.
Court's Observations
The judges, however, found the allegations to be “a shot in the dark.” Justice Hari Shankar, writing the judgment,
noted that “issuance of notice in such petitions can have a serious debilitating effect on the entire banking and commercial infrastructure of the country.”
The Court underlined that PILs based on speculation or partial information cannot be allowed to transform into fishing expeditions.
“If a high-value commercial transaction becomes subject of a public interest litigation by persons unfamiliar with the facts, the damage to public interest could be incalculable,” the Bench warned.
The judges referred extensively to earlier rulings, including Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2024) and State of Jharkhand v. Shiv Shankar Sharma (2022), reiterating that the judiciary cannot act as a “super-regulator” in private commercial dealings unless clear evidence of wrongdoing is presented.
They also pointed out that both banks had conducted multi-tier scrutiny involving independent valuers and committees, including a retired High Court judge, before approving the OTS.
“BOM recovered 116% of its ledger balance,” the court noted, calling it a case of recovery “beyond expectations, not a haircut.”
The Bench reminded that “the right to reputation has been read into Article 21,” emphasizing the harm premature investigations can cause to businesses and individuals.
Bank Responses
The BoM and PNB, represented by the Attorney General R. Venkataramani and ASG N. Venkatraman, described the petition as “an exercise in adventurism.” They detailed how multiple valuations were obtained from reputed firms such as R.K. Associates, Kanti Karamsey & Co., and Universal Consultants, each verifying factors like property-tax dues, restrictions on land use, and maintenance costs.
PNB submitted that the hotel’s earlier valuation figures ignored regulatory constraints, property tax liabilities, and the exclusion of Tower A - which was never mortgaged. “There was no question of any haircut,” the banks maintained.
Court’s Reasoning
The judges observed that the petitioner had failed to disclose the identity of its so-called “reliable whistleblower,” violating Rule 9(i)(c) of the Delhi High Court PIL Rules, which mandates disclosure of information sources. The Court remarked that such vague references do not meet the standard for serious public-interest litigation.
Quoting from the order, Justice Hari Shankar said, “Easy allegations of financial impropriety by banks should not be entertained. Banks, acting bona fide, cannot be made answerable to the judiciary for their economic wisdom.”
The judgment also made a broader point on the misuse of PILs in commercial disputes:
“The possibility of blackmail, in the garb of public interest litigations, looms large. The Court should satisfy itself that a case for taking cognizance is made out, rather than mechanically issuing notice.”
Decision
Concluding that the petition was founded on “surmises and conjectures,” the Bench dismissed it outright. “We do not find a case made out for issuance of notice in this writ petition,” the Court declared, adding that even ordering an investigation without sufficient evidence would set a “dangerous precedent.”
With that, the petition stood dismissed in limine - meaning, at the very threshold - with no further directions to the CBI, CVC, or Finance Ministry.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a stern message: public interest litigation cannot become a tool for speculative interference in legitimate banking transactions.
Case Title: Infrastructure Watchdog vs Union of India & Ors.