AJAY KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant in person, learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India as well as State Bank of India and also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

(2.) Appellant filed a writ application in his capacity as a consumer/account holder of State Bank of India, Boring Road Branch, Patna. His initial prayer was for a direction for initiating disciplinary proceeding against two officials of Reserve Bank of India posted at Patna for their alleged failure to discharge their duties in redressing the grievance of the petitioner and also for a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to formulate consumer friendly policy in the matter of issuance of certificates regarding counterfeit currency notes. Subsequently, the appellant -writ petitioner also sought a relief for compensation for himself and his clear stand was/is that the writ application is not by way of public interest litigation.

(3.) The factual background which led to filing of the writ application may be notified in brief. The petitioner, who belongs to Indian Police Service, withdrew Rs. 60,000/ - from Boring Road, Patna Branch of the State Bank of India on 24.3.1999. On request, he was paid in currency notes of Rs. 500/ - denomination which consisted of 100 notes in a sealed pack and 20 loose notes. The appellant -writ petitioner went to deposit the amount in his provident fund account at Patliputra Colony Branch of the State Bank of India where he was told that 22 notes in the sealed pack were counterfeits. He came back to the Boring Road Branch where he was offered exchange of the alleged counterfeits notes but the petitioner refused to return the notes in question as he suspected the involvement of some officials of the said Branch. Thereafter, he met local senior officials of Reserve Bank of India as well as of the State Bank of India. He was not satisfied with the suggested procedure by the Reserve Bank of India and hence, after lodging of a criminal case and making correspondence with high functionaries of the two Banks, he filed the writ petition in question which has been finally disposed of with certain observations and directions vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2000.