J&K PUBLIC GRIEVANCES FORUM THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. STATE OF J&K THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Public Interest Litigation is purported to have been filed by the J&K Public Grievance Forum through its Secretary-Amar Nath Bhardwaj son of late Pandit Kahan Chand. The allegations made in the petition are in regard to the mal-functioning of the Citizens Co-operative Bank Ltd.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioner is that the Registrar Co-operative Society has been requested time and again to pay attention to the allegations levelled against the Bank and investigate the same in order to check the financial irregularities of the public funds. The Registrar, Co-operative society has not taken notice of the allegations made by the petitioners regarding irregularities and mal-functioning of the Bank by its Chairman and Directors. Alongwith the petition, the Petitioner filed some newspaper cutting whereby it was reported that the Bank is a sick unit because of benami projects of the Director and cover up fraud committed by its Directors. In one of the newspaper heading is "Sacked Citizens Bank Directors alleges bunglings" and in other one, report has been made in regard to the revengeful attitude of the Managing Director of the Bank leading to the hampering of the functioning of the Bank and in one other paper reference is made that continuance of Managing Director is a threat to the Bank and challenge to the management and Co-operative movement, because, it is den of scams and swindles. The writ petitioner has also made a mention about the inquiry made by the Reserve Bank of India. However, at the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Reserve Bank of India apart from saying it is a weak Bank has dropped the inquiry against the Bank.

(3.) The notice of the writ petition was served upon the respondent-Bank. The detailed reply has been filed by the respondent No. 4. In one of the preliminary objections, the respondent-Bank has stated that the present public Interest Litigation does not lie as neither any public interest is violated nor any public wrong is involved in the functioning of the Bank. It is stated that the petitioner who poses to, be saviour of the Bank has actually come to protect his own rights in the name of public interest. The respondent-Bank has stated that the petitioner Amar Nath Bhardwaj happens to be the Landlord of the Bank Branch Building situated at Vinayak Bazar, Jammu and right from the date when the building owned by him was taken on rent, he has been making the Complaints with a view to Pressurize the Management of the Bank for hike in rent and give concession in the rate of interest on the loan which was taken by him-from the Bank. It further stated that the Bank was not able to grant or extend such benefit and so he has filed the present petition seeking redressal of his grievances in the name of general public with sordid aim to pressurise the bank so as, to concede his illegal demands, The respondent Bank has denied the allegations in respect of the debts, excess spendings or mal-functioning of the Bank as alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent-Bank has further stated that every Bank is audited in routine every year and the reports are furnished in respect of different heads and remedial measures, if any, are suggested. In regard to the allegations of the petitioner that the Registrar, Co-operative Society has not paid attention to the complaints made by the petitioner, it is stated that no representation was ever made to the Registrar, Co-operative Society for making any inquiry against the Bank. As regards the inquiry conducted by the Reserve Bank of India, the respondent-Bank has stated that the Reserve Bank of India was fully satisfied with the explanation tendered by the Management of the Bank but since it did not find any substance in the complaints, no further action whatsoever was taken by the Reserve Bank of India. Alongwith the reply, the respondent- Bank has enclosed certain letters written by the petitioner-Amar Nath Bhardwaj in regard to the building which has been let out to the Bank. The correspondence between him and the Bank shows that he has been demanding increase in rent and also reduction in the interest on the loan amount. The correspondence further shows that the Bank was to charge interest @ 23% but after considering the representation made by him, the interest was reduced to 17% The Petitioner was not satisfied with the reduction and claimed that the interests should be further reduced and should be charged w.e.f. the date the loan was granted and not from the date the rate of: interest was reduced. The Bank did not concede this demand of the petitioner. In fact, some of the correspondence relates to the period after the writ petition has been filed in this Court.