Caution listing a valuer without specific findings of malafide intent and procedural compliance violates Article 19(1)(g).

The Petitioner, a Chartered Engineer and Govt. Approved Valuer empanelled with Union Bank of India (formerly Andhra Bank) and Federal Bank

received a show-cause notice on 10.04.2018 alleging valuation irregularities at the Hagaribommanahalli branch.

Despite submitting a detailed reply on 23.07.2018, the Petitioner received no further communication.

In May 2019, Respondent No. 3 (Union Bank) recommended the Petitioner’s inclusion in the TPE (Third Party Entity) Caution List maintained by Respondent No. 1 (IBA).

The Petitioner discovered this inclusion only when banks ceased allotting him work.

He challenged the inclusion on grounds of procedural non-compliance and violation of natural justice.

The Court applied Article 19(1)(g) regarding the right to practice a profession and Article 226 concerning the High Court's power to issue writs for public functions.

It relied on the Procedural Guidelines for Reporting Names of Third Parties involved in Frauds to IBA, specifically Rule 5 (Constitution of an independent Forum) and Guideline 6 (Distinction between negligence and malafide intent).

It further applied Clause 1.4 of the Handbook on Policy, Standards and Procedures for Real Estate Valuation (2011), which mandates a three-step process: show-cause notice, hearing, and reasoned action.

Precedents including H.T. Vasudev v. SBI established that valuers are not responsible for title scrutiny.

N.R. Raghuram & Co. v. IBA established that caution listing without due process is unconstitutional.

The Court determined that the IBA performs a "public function" by maintaining a centralized database that effectively blacklists professionals, making it amenable to Article 226 despite not being "State" under Article 12.

Regarding delay, the Court held that the caution list constitutes a "continuing wrong" as it inflicts daily professional injury.

On merits, the Court found the respondent banks failed to constitute the mandatory "Forum" under Rule 5 to evaluate the Petitioner's role independently.

The Court emphasized that under Guideline 6(g), "isolated negligence" does not warrant caution listing; only proven "malafide intention" suffices.

Factually, the bank conducted no hearing, recorded no reasoned order, and failed to communicate the final decision, thus violating the Handbook’s mandatory safeguards.

Following the Vasudev precedent, the Court noted that discrepancies in property identification/extent fall under legal title scrutiny, not the technical remit of a civil engineer valuer.

It held that the Petitioner’s inclusion in the TPE Caution List was illegal, arbitrary, and a violation of the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).

The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the IBA to delete the Petitioner’s name from the Caution List and update its website within four weeks.

Respondent banks were directed to remove his name from internal "depanelled" lists and reconsider his empanelment afresh on merits within eight weeks.

Liberty was reserved for banks to make independent empanelment decisions provided they comply with natural justice and ignore the quashed caution listing.