INDEX [images.assettype.com]images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/11/draft_petition.pdfSince...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. __________ OF 2016

Mumbai District Central Co-operative

Bank Limited …PETITIONER

v.

Reserve Bank of India & Anr …RESPONDENTS

INDEX

S.No Particulars Page

1. Proforma A-C

2. Synopsis D-E

3. Petition

4. Vakalatnama

5. Memorandum of Registered Address

6. List of Documents

7. Certificate of Advocate

8. Exhibit A: Copy of impugned circular dated

14.11.2016

9. Exhibit B: Copy of banking license issued to

Petitioner

10. Exhibit C: Copy of notification dated 08.11.2016

issued by Respondent No. 2 being 3407(E)

11. Exhibit D: Copy of circular of Respondent No. 1

being RBI/2016-17/112 DCM (Plg) No.1226/

10.27.00/2016-17 dated 08.11.2016

12. Exhibit E: Copy of notification allowing certain

persons to accept discontinued currency notes

13. Exhibit F: Copy of corrigendum dated 09.11.2016

issued by the Respondent No. 2 to original

notification

14. Exhibit G: Copy of notice dated 09.11.2016 sent by

the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1.

15. Exhibit H: Copy of notice dated 11.11.2016 sent by

the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1

16. Exhibit I: Copy of notice dated 15.11.2016 sent by

the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1

17. Exhibit J: Copy of bye-laws of the Petitioner

18. Affidavit in Support of Petition

For ABG & Associates

Advocates for the Petitioner






v.


PROFORMA

Office notes, memorandum of

quorum, appearance and Court’s

order or direction and

Prothonotary’s order.

Court’s or Judge’s Order






v.


SYNOPSIS

A.) List of important dates and events

S.No Date Event Exhibit

No.

Page

1. 12.02.1975 The Petitioner was

incorporated and

registered under the

Maharashtra Co-operative

Societies Act, 1960, in the

year 1974 and started its

functioning on 12th

of

February, 1975. It is

licensed to operate as a

bank under the relevant

provisions of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949.

B

2. 08.11.2016 The Respondent No. 2

whilst exercising its

powers under section

26(2) of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934, issued

a notification by which

existing currency notes of

INR 500.00 and INR

1,000.00 ceased to be

legal tender. This

notification was published

C

in the official gazette in

Part II, Section 3(ii),

notification 3407(E).

Paragraph 1 of the

primary notification

allowed “every banking

company defined under

the Banking Regulation

Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)”

to deposit the

discontinued currency

with the Reserve Bank of

India and to receive credit

for the same. Paragraph 2

of the primary

notification, which is

relevant to the present

petition, allowed “any

Issue Office of the

Reserve Bank or any

branch of public sector

banks, private sector

banks, foreign banks,

Regional Rural Banks,

Urban Cooperative Banks

and State Cooperative

Banks” to receive


notes from members of

the public at large in the

manner provided therein.

3. 08.11.2016 The Respondent No. 1, on

the same day, i.e on the

8th of November, 2016,

issued a circular being

RBI/2016-17/112 DCM

(Plg)

D

No.1226/10.27.00/2016-

17 setting down the

guidelines to implement

the primary notification


also published another

notification in the official

gazette notifying certain

categories of persons who

were permitted to accept

the discontinued currency

notes as legal tender for

their goods and/or

services.

E


published a corrigendum

to the primary notification

in the official gazette.

This corrigendum, in

essence, made paragraph

2 of the primary

notification applicable to

all co-operative banks in

addition to other classes

of banks.

F

6. 09.11.2016

&

11.11.2016

Notices were sent by the

Petitioner to the

Respondent No. 1

G

H


published the impugned

circular prohibiting

district central co-

operative banks from

either providing the

facility to exchange

A


notes with new ones, or

allowing account holders

to deposit discontinued

currency notes

8. 15.11.2016 Notice sent by the

Petitioner to the

Respondent No. 1 in

relation to the impugned

circular

I

9. June 2009 As per the revival scheme,

the mill undertakings

ought to have been fully

operational within 18

months from being

awarded the bid

10. Present day The mill undertakings

which ought to have been

fully operational by now

after entering into the

joint ventures, are still not

functioning evenly close

to their intended capacity.

However, the Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 have not

taken any steps to

terminate the joint-

venture agreements.

Hence this petition.

B.) Points to be heard:

That the impugned circular is in excess of the Respondent No. 1’s

authority and powers.

That the impugned circular ought to be quashed and set aside.

C.) Acts/Rules to be relied upon

The Constitution of India, 1950

The Banking Regulation Act, 1949

The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, 1981

D.) Authorities to be cited

As required for the Application





WRIT PETITION NO. ____________ OF 2016

In the matter of Articles 14, 19, 21, and

226 of the Constitution of India, 1950;

and

In the matter of section 26(2) of the

Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934;

and

In the matter of circular issued by the

Reserve Bank of India bearing reference

number RBI/2016-17/130 DCM (Plg)

No.1273/10.27.00/2016-17;

and

In the matter of notification published by

the Central Government through the

Ministry of Finance on the 8th

of

November, 2016;

In the matter of:

Mumbai District Central Co-operative )

Bank Limited, Mumbai Bank Bhavan, )

207, Dr. D.N Road, Fort, )

Mumbai – 400 001, ) …PETITIONER

v.

1. Reserve Bank of India, )

through the Governor, )

Central Office Building )

18th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh )

Road, Mumbai – 400 001 )

)

2. Union of India, through the )

Ministry of Finance, Department )

OfEconomic Affairs, 2nd

Floor, )

AaykarBhavan, Maharishi Karve )

Marg,New Marine Lines, )

Mumbai – 400 020 ) …RESPONDENTS

TO,

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

OTHER HONOURABLE PUISNE JUDGES

OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVENAMED:

1. The present writ petition is being filed by the Petitioner above

named in relation to a circular issued by the Respondent No. 1 (the

Reserve Bank of India) on the 14th

of November, 2016, bearing

reference number RBI/2016-17/130 DCM (Plg)

No.1273/10.27.00/2016-17 (hereinafter referred to as the

“impugned circular” for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court). A

copy of this impugned circular is being annexed to this petition as

“Exhibit A”. By this circular, the Respondent No. 1 has restricted

the ability of the Petitioner to carry on its lawful banking business as

per the banking license obtained by it. The Petitioner submits that

the impugned circular is, inter alia, arbitrary in nature, in excess of

the Respondent No. 1’s authority, and is in violation of the

provisions of section 26 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

2. The Petitioner (“The Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank

Ltd.”) is a central financing agency for all affiliated co-operative

societies in Mumbai district and is popularly known as "MUMBAI

BANK". The Respondent No. 1 is the Reserve Bank of India, an

autonomous statutory body formed under the provisions of the

Reserve Bank of India, 1934, and derives its powers from that

statute. The Respondent No. 2 is the branch of the government

responsible for overseeing affairs relating to India’s monetary

policies, including those relating to currency.

3. The facts in brief that have led to the filing of the present writ

petition shall now be set out by the Petitioner below:

A. The Petitioner was incorporated and registered under the

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in the year

1974 and started its functioning on 12th

of February, 1975.

The Petitioner is a “central co-operative bank” under the

provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act,

1981. A central co-operative bank is the principal co-

operative society in a district in a State, the primary object of

which is the financing of other co-operative societies in that

district. The purpose of a central co-operative bank is to act as

the banker to other industry and purpose-specific co-operative

societies within a district, for example milk co-operative

societies, agricultural co-operative societies, etc.

B. The Petitioner is currently acting as a central co-operative

bank under the terms of a licence obtained by it from the

Reserve Bank of India, issued under section 22(1) read with

section 56(o) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. A copy

of this licence, the latest iteration of which was issued on the

20th

of December, 2011, is being annexed to this petition as

“Exhibit B”.

C. Since there is no agriculture production in the Mumbai

district, the Petitioner is catering to the financial needs of

non-agricultural co-operative societies such as Urban Co-op.

Banks, Urban Co-op. Credit Societies, Employees Co-op.

Credit Societies, Housing Co-op. Societies, Co-op.

Consumers stores, Industrial, fisheries and labour Co-op.

Societies etc.

D. In India, an integral part of the policies formed as part of the

Co-operative movement is the development of the country,

upliftment of poor and propagation of principles which

represents the very socio-cultural ethos of the country. The

co-operative movement has enabled the nation to develop it’s

economy and to bring social change at large. The success of

the co-operative depends largely on their ability to face the

challenges by converting these challenges into opportunities

of growth and development in the fast changing liberalized

economic era. The Indian co-operative movement is by far

the largest such movement in the world. In India co-

operatives operate in almost all important sectors i.e.

agricultural, agro-processing, fertiliser, marketing, credit,

dairies, spinning, handloom and handicrafts, sugar, fisheries,

banking, etc.

E. As per the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934,

a central co-operative bank is entitled to carry on the business

of banking in the same manner as any other bank, subject to

certain modifications as set out therein. The Petitioner has

been carrying out its business as per its license and the objects

for which it was formed.

F. On the 8th

of November, 2016, the Respondent No. 2 whilst

exercising its powers under section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934, issued a notification by which the existing

series of currency notes of INR 500.00 and INR 1,000.00

ceased to be legal tender. This notification was published in

the official gazette in Part II, Section 3(ii), notification

3407(E). A copy of this notification is being annexed to this

petition as “Exhibit C”. For the convenience of this Hon’ble

Court, this notification shall henceforth be referred to as the

“primary notification”.

G. Paragraph 1 of the primary notification allowed “every

banking company defined under the Banking Regulation Act,

1949 (10 of 1949)” to deposit the discontinued currency with

the Reserve Bank of India and to receive credit for the same.

Paragraph 2 of the primary notification, which is relevant to

the present petition, allowed “any Issue Office of the Reserve

Bank or any branch of public sector banks, private sector

banks, foreign banks, Regional Rural Banks, Urban

Cooperative Banks and State Cooperative Banks” to receive

discontinued currency notes from members of the public at

large in the manner provided therein. Specifically, the entities

mentioned in this paragraph would be allowed to:

(i) Exchange the discontinued currency notes of aggregate

value of INR 4,000.00 or below (later increased to INR

4,500.00) with currency notes after obtaining a requisition

slip in the specified format and proof of identity of the person

seeking such exchange;

(ii) Receive deposits from account holders of the

discontinued currency notes;

(iii) Permit withdrawals by account holders of amounts upto

INR 10,000.00 per day of valid currency notes from the bank

counters, or INR 2000.00 per day through Automatic Teller

Machines.

H. The Respondent No. 1, on the same day, i.e on the 8th

of

November, 2016, issued a circular being RBI/2016-17/112

DCM (Plg) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17 setting down the

guidelines to implement the primary notification (hereinafter

referred to as the "RBI circular" for the convenience of this

Hon’ble Court). A copy of this circular is being annexed to

this petition as “Exhibit D”.

I. Part 3(c) of this RBI circular, entitled “Provision of Exchange

Facility” dealt with the mandate set out in paragraph 2 of the

primary notification. As this RBI circular was issued

ostensibly to implement the mandate of the primary

notification, it restricted the operation of this section to public

sector banks, private sector banks, foreign banks, Regional

Rural Banks, Urban Cooperative Banks and State

Cooperative Banks.

J. On the 8th

of November, 2016, the Respondent No. 2 also

published another notification in the official gazette notifying

certain categories of persons who were permitted to accept

the discontinued currency notes as legal tender for their goods

and/or services. A copy of this notification is being annexed

to this petition as “Exhibit E”.

K. Thus the Petitioner, being a central co-operative bank (also

known as a district central co-operative bank) was not

allowed to either exchange the discontinued currency notes or

allow their deposit by virtue of the primary notification and

the RBI circular.

L. However, the Respondent No. 2 published a corrigendum to

the primary notification on the 9th

of November, 2016, in the

official gazette (hereinafter referred to as the “said

corrigendum” for the convenience of this Hon’ble Court). A

copy of the said corrigendum is being annexed to this petition

as “Exhibit F”. This corrigendum, in essence, made

paragraph 2 of the primary notification applicable to all co-

operative banks in addition to other classes of banks.

M. Aggrieved by the RBI circular, and not yet having received

the said corrigendum, the Petitioner sent a notice to the

Respondent No. 1 on the 9th

of November, 2016, setting out

its grievances. A copy of this notice is being annexed to this

petition as “Exhibit G”.

N. The Petitionerwas, alongwith other banks, allowed to resume

business operations from the 10th

of November, 2016. On the

basis of the primary notification read alongwith the said

corrigendum, the Petitioner began accepting deposits from its

account holders in accordance with paragraph 2 of the

primary notification. The Petitioner also began allowing the

exchange facility in accordance with paragraph 2 of the

primary notification. The Petitioner continued to do so until

the 13th

of November, 2016. By virtue of a circular published

by the Respondent No. 1 bearing reference number

RBI/2016-17/114 DBR. No. Leg. BC.31/09.07.005/2016-17

the Petitioner as well as other banks were directed to remain

open on the 12th

and 13th

of November, 2016, despite those

dates being a Saturday and a Sunday. The Petitioner craves

the leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely upon this

notification as and when required.

O. Despite the said corrigendum, the Respondent No. 1 did not

amend the RBI circular to reflect the applicability of the

primary notification to central co-operative banks (also

known as district central co-operative banks). After becoming

aware of the said corrigendum, the Petitioner sent another

notice to the Respondent No. 1 on the 11th

of November,

2016, to bring the contents and effect of the said notification

to the Respondent No. 1’s notice. A copy of this notice is

being annexed to this petition as “Exhibit H”. The

Respondent No. 1 has not replied to either of the notices sent

to it by the Petitioner.

P. Instead, the Respondent No. 1 on the 14th

of November, 2016,

published the impugned circular prohibiting district central

co-operative banks from either providing the facility to

exchange discontinued currency notes with new ones, or

allowing account holders to deposit discontinued currency

notes. The Petitioner submits that the impugned notice is

arbitrary in nature and ought to be quashed, on the grounds

that shall be set out later in this petition.

Q. Being aggrieved by the impugned circular, the Petitioner once

again sent a notice to the Respondent No. 1 on the 15th

of

November, 2016, setting out how it is legally unsustainable.

A copy of this notice dated the 15th

of November, 2016, is

being annexed to this petition as “Exhibit I”. The Petitioner

has not received any response to this notice. The present

petition is being filed in the circumstances narrated above to

challenge the impugned circular.

4. Before stating the grounds upon which the present petition is filed, it

would be pertinent to set out in brief the certain relevant provisions

of the applicable legal framework, as below:

A. The primary notification was issued by the Respondent No. 2

exercising its powers under section 26(2) of the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1934. Section 26 is reproduced below:

26. Legal tender character of notes. — (1) Subject

to the provisions of sub-section (2), every bank

note shall be legal tender at any place in India in

payment or on account for the amount expressed

therein, and shall be guaranteed by the Central

Government.

(2) On recommendation of the Central Board the

Central Government may, by notification in the

Gazette of India, declare that, with effect from

such date as may be specified in the notification,

any series of bank notes of any denomination shall

cease to be legal tender save at such office or

agency of the Bank and to such extent as may be

specified in the notification.

B. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the

ultimate power of delegitimizing any series of currency notes

rests with the Respondent No. 2. While it is true that the

Respondent No. 2 acts upon the recommendation of the

Respondent No. 1, such recommendation is not binding.

Further, it is the Respondent No. 2 is entitled to specify to

what extent the power is being exercised, and not the

Respondent No. 1.

C. The provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, are

applicable to co-operative societies engaged in the business of

banking by virtue ofPart V thereof. As per the provisions of

this part, a co-operative bank is defined as:

(cci) “Co-operative bank” means a bank state co-

operative bank, a central co-operative bank and a

primary co-operative bank;

…

(ccvii) “central co-operative bank”, “primary

rural credit society” and “State co-operative

bank” shall have the meaning respectively

assigned to them in the National Bank for

Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981.

D. As per the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development Act, 1981, “central co-operative bank” is

defined as below:

(d) “central cooperative bank” means the

principal cooperative society in a district in a

State, the primary object of which is the financing

of other cooperative societies in that district:

Provided that in addition to such principal society

in a district, or where there is no such principal

society in a district, the State Government may

declare any one or more cooperative societies

carrying on the business of financing other

cooperative societies in that district to be also or

to be a central cooperative bank or central

cooperative banks within the meaning of this

definition;

5. The Petitioner submits that the present writ petition is being filed

upon the following grounds, which are in alternative and without

prejudice to one another:

A. That the impugned circular is arbitrary, discriminatory and

illegal and cannot be sustained. The Respondent No. 1 does

not have the authority or power to issue the impugned

circular. The impugned circular violates the provisions of part

III of the Constitution of India, 1950.

B. That the impugned circular is completely outside the purview

of the scope of powers of the Respondent No. 1. The powers

of the Respondent No. 1 are as set out in the Reserve Bank of

India Act, 1934. The primary notification was issued by the

Respondent No. 2 under section 26 of the Reserve Bank of

India, 1950. However, it is clear from even a bare perusal of

this provision that the power of discontinuing any series of

currency notes as legal tender lies with the Respondent No. 2

alone. While it is true that the Respondent No. 2 can exercise

its powers under this section after receiving a

recommendation from the Respondent No. 1, such a

recommendation is not binding. Ultimately, the discretion lies

with the Respondent No. 2. Further, section 26 makes it clear

that it is the Respondent No. 2 alone which has the power to

specify the extent to which any notification passed under that

section is to operate. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 does

not have the authority to impose any fetters upon a

notification issued under section 26; nor can it restrict or

enlarge the scope of any such notification. It is a settled

principle of law that delegated legislation must fall

completely within the scope of the statute that permits its

creation. However, in the present case, as is clearly visible,

the Respondent No. 1 has exceeded its scope of powers.

C. That the impugned circular ignores, and effectively negates,

the effect of the said corrigendum upon the primary

notification. By virtue of the said corrigendum, the Petitioner

would be entitled to do and/or permit any of the acts set out in

paragraph 2 of the primary notification. However, by the

impugned circular, the Respondent No. 1 is expressly

restricting the Petitioner and other similar banks from doing

so.

D. As per the said corrigendum, any “banking company, co-

operative bank, corresponding new bank, subsidiary bank,

regional rural bank and the State Bank of India as defined

under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949)” is

entitled to do any of the acts set out in paragraph 2 of the

primary notification. The definition of “co-operative bank”

has as per the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, has already

been set out above. It can be seen from this definition that the

term would include banks such as the Petitioner. Therefore,

the said corrigendum clearly and unequivocally brought the

Petitioner under the purview of paragraph 2 of the primary

notification. In light of this, the Respondent No. 1 is not

entitled to circumvent this by issuing the impugned circular

and barring the Petitioner from exercising these rights.

E. That the impugned circular is in excess of the Respondent No.

1’s powers of creating delegated legislation. There is no

provision in the Reserve Bank of India, 1934, allowing the

Respondent No. 1 to issue any directions as those that have

been issued by the impugned circular. The impugned circular

cannot be justified or backed by any of the provisions of this

statute. On this ground alone, it deserves to be quashed and

set aside.

F. That the impugned circular has the effect of preventing the

petitioner from carrying out its banking business despite

holding a valid licence under the provisions of the Banking

Regulation Act, 1949. By virtue of such a license, the

Petitioner ought to be entitled to operate its banking business

and to accept deposits. However, the impugned circular

prevents it from doing so. This is arbitrary in nature which, if

permitted, would have the effect of bestowing wide powers

upon the Respondent No. 1 to curtail the rights attached to

such a licence without any legal justification. Further, by

preventing the Petitioner from doing its business, the

impugned circular must be held to be in violation of article 19

of the Constitution of India, 1950.

G. That the impugned circular is discriminatory in nature, and is

thus in violation of article 14 of the Constitution of India,

1950. The impugned circular singles out district central co-

operative banks and disallows them from doing any of the

acts set out in paragraph 2 of the primary notification.

However, there is no such restriction on any other type or

class of bank. The impugned circular, while creating this

distinction, does not give any reason why such a distinction is

being made. Nor is it explained how such a distinction, even

if valid, is relevant to the proper implementation of the

primary notification. Therefore, in the absence of any such

intelligible differentia or reasonable nexus between that and

the object of the primary notification, the impugned circular

cannot be sustained and must be held to be in violation of

article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

H. That the impugned circular is arbitrary, insofar as it

completely ignores the said corrigendum and its effect. The

said corrigendum clearly and unequivocally makes paragraph

2 of the primary notification applicable to the Petitioner and

other such central co-operative banks. The said corrigendum

(as well as the primary notification itself) was notified by the

Respondent No. 2, which is the Central Government and is

empowered to exercise all sovereign functions as per the

Constitution of India, 1950. The Respondent No. 1, being a

statutory body, cannot circumvent the actions taken by the

Respondent No. 2 without any clear authority to do so.

Therefore, the impugned circular must be held to be arbitrary,

and consequently to be struck down as in violation of articles

14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

I. The Petitioner, by its very nature, acts as the banker to other

co-operative societies within the Mumbai District. Therefore,

the Petitioner provides banking services to numerous co-

operative societies established to act for the collective benefit

of all their members. Due to the impugned circular, the co-

operative societies would be unable to deposit the

discontinued currency notes with their banker, i.e the

Petitioner. At the same time, these currency notes would be

useless for most purposes. This would cause great loss to the

members of such co-operative societies. On this ground also,

the impugned circular ought to be quashed and set aside.

J. Many hospitals, petrol pumps, medical stores, schools, etc

maintain accounts with the Petitioner. However, due to the

impugned circular, they will not be able to deposit any of the

discontinued currency notes in their possession in their bank

accounts maintained with the Petitioner. It is pertinent to note

that certain classes of business have been permitted to accept

the discontinued currency notes as legal tender such as petrol

pumps, consumer co-operative stores, and milk booths.

However, these same entities are now being prevented from

depositing those same old currency notes in their accounts

maintained with the Petitioner. This is clearly in violation of

article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

K. There are a total of 1,03,873 savings accounts opened by

individuals and 12,285 savings accounts opened by housing

societies maintained in the Petitioner bank, the owners of

which are barred from depositing any discontinued currency

notes in their possession into them. Further, there are more

than 600 staff members of the Petitioner who maintain their

accounts with the Petitioner bank who are now unable to

deposit their discontinued currency notes with the Petitioner.

This is clearly causing great hardship to a large number of

persons and societies. The impugned circular does not contain

any rationale or justification for the same. Apart from this, it

is not uncommon for persons who have obtained loans from

the Petitioner to pay their EMIs using cash; which they will

now be unable to do due to the impugned circular.

Additionally, the Petitioner has had to return many cheques as

dishonoured as it is unable to accept deposits from the

individuals who issued the cheques into their accounts. Due

to all of these reasons, this Hon’ble Court ought to quash and

set aside the impugned circular.

L. That it is absurd that by virtue of the RBI circular and the

impugned circular, urban co-operative banks are allowed to

collect deposits but the Petitioner isn’t. The Petitioner acts as

a clearing agent for many urban co-operative banks. Thus, the

impugned circular has created an absurd situation and

deserved to be quashed and set aside.

M. That the impugned circular does not prohibit withdrawals

from being made by account-holders of the Petitioner from

their accounts. However, at the same time, it prevents the

Petitioner from accepting any deposits. This puts the

Petitioner in the difficult position of not being able to

replenish its funds. This also attests to the fact that the

impugned circular is arbitrary in nature and ought to be set

aside.

N. That the impugned circular has the effect of discouraging the

Petitioner’s customers from maintaining their accounts with

the Petitioner, and to encourage them to transfer their

accounts to another bank. This is clearly in violation of the

Petitioner’s rights under articles 14, 19, and 21 of the

Constitution of India, 1950.

O. That the impugned circular is ex facie illegal and cannot find

support from any provision of the Reserve Bank of India Act,

1934. The impugned circular has been issued by the

Respondent No. 1 in excess of its authority under the relevant

statute. As such, it cannot be sustained.

6. In light of the above, the Petitioner has had no choice but to

approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, 1950, for appropriate reliefs. The Petitioner does not have any

alternate or efficacious remedy except for this writ petition.

7. The Petitioner also seeks urgent ad-interim and interim reliefs. Due

to the nature of the impugned circular and the current overall

situation due to the primary notification, every day the Petitioner is

unable to accept deposits from its customers is resulting in

irreparable loss and harm. It is further causing grave hardship and

difficulties for the account holders themselves. For this reason, the

Petitioner is seeking that, pending the hearing and final disposal of

the present petition, the impugned circular be stayed and it be

allowed to accept deposits from persons who maintain accounts with

it.

8. The Petitioner submits that it has not filed any other petition or other

proceedings concerning the same subject matter for the same reliefs

in any other court or tribunal.

9. The Petitioner submits that the present petition is being verified by,

and is being supported by the affidavit of, one Mr. Devdas S. Kadam

who is a General Manager of the Petitioner and is fully aware of the

facts and circumstances of the case. He is authorised to affirm such

an affidavit and file the present petition by virtue of the bye-laws of

the Petitioner. A copy of these bye-laws are being annexed to this

petition as “Exhibit J”.

10. The Petitioner submits that it is paying the appropriate court fees of

INR 250.00 upon this petition.

11. As the subject matter of the present petition is located in Mumbai,

this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to hear the present

petition.

12. In light of the facts and circumstances set out above, the Petitioner

humbly prays that:

A. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the

Petitioner is entitled to do any of the acts set out in paragraph

2 of the primary notification;

B. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the

impugned circular, and declare that it is void ab initio as

having been made in excess of the Respondent No. 1’s power

and authority;

C. That, pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition,

this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation of the

impugned circular and allow the Petitioner to accept deposits

as per paragraph 2 of the primary notification.

D. For costs of this petition;

E. Any other order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the

facts and circumstances of this case.

Dated this ___ day of July, 2016

For advocates for the Petitioner For the Petitioner

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Devdas S. Kadam, the General Manager of the Petitioner

abovenamed, solemnly declare that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 5 and

12 is true to my own knowledge, and that what is stated in the remaining

paragraphs 6 to 11 is stated on information and belief, and I believe the

same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai )

Dated this __ day of November, 2016 )

Before Me



I am not a member of Welfare Fund,

hence, stamp of Rs.2/- is not affixed.



WRIT PETITION NO. ____________ OF 2016

In the matter of:

Mumbai District Central Co-operative )

Bank Limited, Mumbai Bank Bhavan, )

207, Dr. D.N Road, Fort, )

Mumbai – 400 001, ) …PETITIONER

v.

1. Reserve Bank of India, )

through the Governor, )

Central Office Building )

18th Floor, Shahid Bhagat Singh )

Road, Mumbai – 400 001 )

)

2. Union of India, through the )

Ministry of Finance, Department )

Of Economic Affairs, 2nd

Floor, )

AaykarBhavan, Maharishi Karve )

Marg, New Marine Lines, )

Mumbai – 400 020 ) …RESPONDENTS

To

The Prothonotary & Senior Master,

High Court,

Bombay.

Sir,


abovenamed, do hereby appoint ABG & Associates, Advocates,

having his office at A / 104, RidhiSidhi Complex, M.G. Road, Borivali

(E), Mumbai – 66, to act, appear and plead for me in the above matter.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set and subscribed my

hands to this writing at Mumbai this _____ day of __________, 2016.

(Mr. Devdas S. Kadam)

(General Manager, for the

Petitioner)

Accepted:

ABG & Associates


Reg. No: I 6879

OS Reg: 10083






v.


MEMORANDUM OF REGISTERED ADDRESS

Mumbai District Central Co-operative Bank Limited

c/o ABG & Associates,

Advocates for the Petitioner,

A / 104, RidhiSidhi Complex, M.G. Road,

Borivali (E), Mumbai – 66.

Tel: 28901165/66

Email: [email protected]








v.


LIST OF DOCUMENTS WHICH THE PETITIONER WILL

RELY UPON

1. All Exhibits to the Petition

2. All the documents, legal proceedings including pleadings, and

Affidavits therein referred to and relied upon by the Petitioner in the

Petition; and

3. All other relevant documents with the permission of this Hon’ble

Court.








v.


ADVOCATES CERTIFICATE UNDER RULE 636(2) OF THE

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (ORIGINAL SIDE) RULES, 1980

This is to certify that the present Writ Petition does not pertain to

any of the matters referred to in Rule 636(1)(a) of The Bombay High Court

(Original Side) Rules, 1980, and therefore is to be heard by a Division

Bench of this Hon’ble Court as per the provisions of Rule 636(1)(b) of The

Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.








v.


AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT


abovenamed, having my office at Mumbai Bank Bhavan, 207, Dr. D.N

Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001, do hereby state on solemn affirm and state

as under:-

1. I say that I am the General Manager of the Petitioner above-named,

and as such, I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances of this

case, and am fully competent to make this affidavit.

2. I say that the Petitioner abovenamed has filed this petition seeking to

quash and set aside the circular dated the 14th

of November, 2016,

issued by the Respondent No. 1, as better set out in the petition. I say

that the contents of the petition are true and correct and that no

material fact has been withheld from this Hon’ble Court. I say that

the Petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for.

3. Therefore, I humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant

the relief sought for in this petition.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )

This ___ day of November, 2016 )

Before Me



INDEX [images.assettype.com]images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/11/draft_petition.pdfSince...

Documents

Transcript of INDEX [images.assettype.com]images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2016/11/draft_petition.pdfSince...