ASHOKBHAI D NAIK Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It emerges from the averments made by the petitioner and the diverse relief/s prayed for, that upon being perturbed and feeling aggrieved by the functioning and the state-of-affairs of the respondent No.3-General Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent No. 3 Bank"), the petitioner had represented before the respondent No. 1-Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "RBI") to take action against the respondent No.3 Bank and since, in the petitioner's opinion, any action to safeguard the interests of the respondent No.3 Bank and its shareholders, members and the depositors were not being taken by the RBI, the petitioner preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought directions against RBI requiring it to take actions against the respondent No.3, a Co-operative Bank. 1.1 It also comes out from the petition that in light of RBI's Inspection Report (at Annexure-A) and on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.1989 urging RBI to take action thereon, present petition came to be filed on 19.02.1990 against the inaction on the part of respondent No. 1 RBI and Union of India in the Ministry of Finance praying, inter alia, that action/s be taken by RBI against the respondent No.3 bank and against the responsible Director(s) and Officers) v of respondent No.3 bank for number of irregularities and illegalities committed in the respondent No.3 -bank at the instance of its Director (respondent No.4) as well as other officers/person s.

(2.) This petition was initially placed before- a learned Single Judge who issued notice to the respondents. After the affidavit in rejoinder was filed, the learned Single Judge (P.K.Sarkar, J.) in the order dated 11.04.2000 observed that as per the petitioner's assertions the petition was also filed as a public interest litigation. Hence, the learned Single Judge by the said order dated 11.04.2000 referred the matter to the Division Bench taking up Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, after the said order dtd. 11/04/2000 the petition has been considered by the Division Bench. It deserves to be mentioned at this stage that the above referred order dated 11.04.2000 (considering the petition also as PIL) was not challenged by any respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2008 and by an administrative order dated 24.11.2008 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before this Court.

(3.) The broad picture emerges as under:-