HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.30331 of 2010 O R D E R: Both the learned counsel have made submissions in the writ petition itself and with their consent, the writ petition itself is being disposed of. 2. This writ petition was admitted on 03-12-2010 and interim suspension as prayed for was granted. The respondents have now filed detailed counter affidavit together with an application to vacate the suspension order. 3. Petitioners, who are eighteen in number, have claimed that they have been working as Janata Deposit Collectors under the Janatha Deposit Scheme floated by the respondents-bank. They questioned the decision of the bank as conveyed in the impugned Circular No.DEP/2009-10/38, dated 06-02-2010, whereunder the Bank decided to discontinue the Janatha Deposit Scheme on account of non-viability. 4. The petitioners contend that they have been working as Deposit Collectors for several decades and their livelihood depends upon the income earned by them on depositing of collections and such discontinuation of the scheme, without taking into consideration the right to livelihood of the petitioners, is unconstitutional and arbitrary. 5. Primarily, two main contentions have been raised by the respondents, while opposing the writ petition viz., that the association of Deposit Collectors had earlier approached this Court by W.P.No.3012 of 2010 claiming self same relief questioning the Circular of the Bank. The association, however, withdrew the said writ petition in view of the industrial dispute allegedly pending between the parties therein. This Court, therefore, permitted withdrawal of the said writ petition by order dated 16-11-2010. However, the present petitioners (who are admittedly members of the same association, petitioner in W.P.No.3012 of 2010) have once again approached this Court individually by the present writ petition questioning the Circular aforesaid. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners, who are members of the association, are bound by the order passed in W.P.No.3012 of 2010 and they cannot maintain fresh writ petition on same cause of action and agitate individually either by alleging that they were not informed of the withdrawal of the writ petition by the association or otherwise. Second and more formidable objection is raised by the respondents by bringing to the notice of this Court, the decision of the Supreme Court in Transfer Case (Civil) No.79/2005, dated 28-02-2008, relating to similar issue arising out of decision of the State Bank of India to discontinue the Janatha Deposit Scheme of the said bank. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the present writ petition does not survive for consideration in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, tries to get over both the said contentions by submitting that so far as the earlier writ petition filed by the association is concerned, the petitioners are unaware of its withdrawal and cannot be shut out from agitating issue in this writ petition. So far as the merits are concerned, he submits that as per the circular, the existing accounts will be continued though no new Janatha Deposit Collectors are to be appointed. He, therefore, submits that when such existing accounts are continued, there is no reason as to why petitioners cannot be continued as Collectors for the said existing accounts. 8. I am unable to accept either of the said contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. So far as earlier W.P.No.3012 of 2010 is concerned, the association undoubtedly represented the petitioners as well, who are admittedly it’s members. That writ petition having been withdrawn, the same, not only binds the association, but all it’s members and it is not open for the petitioners to approach this Court by a separate subsequent writ petition for the self same relief. 10. To the extent of the contentions on merits are concerned, the very circular states that the scheme has been closed down on account of non-viability with an intention to ensure that the accounts which are opened under the scheme are to be closed down at the earliest. 11. Counter affidavits of the Bank state in detail various reasons which compelled the bank to take the said decision. Counter affidavit also refers to such Janatha Deposit Scheme closed by several Nationalized Banks one after the other and also justified the policy decision taken by the Bank to close down the present scheme as continuation of the scheme is not beneficial to the bank and is resulting in annual losses on account of change of rate of interest from time to time. The economic non-viability of the scheme left the respondent- bank with no choice but it’s discontinuation. It is also stated that the scheme was introduced to benefit the public only, and not for the benefit of Janatha Deposit Collectors i.e. petitioners. 12. Similar scheme of State Bank of India was considered by the Supreme Court of India and while upholding the scheme and rejecting the similar claim of the deposit collectors, the Supreme Court has recorded the following findings: “A perusal of the Circular as referred above would clearly show that the Scheme is not economically viable. The Scheme has also contributed a number of frauds. In our view, having regard to the facts mentioned in the order we do not see any arbitrary exercise of power by the authority concerned in discontinuing with the Scheme, as contended by the learned counsel of the petitioners. Similarly, when the concerned authority introduced the Scheme as a policy decision the same authority can discontinue or abandon the Scheme in accordance with a policy decision of the concerned authority. It is now well settled principle of law that the Court does not interfere with the policy decision of the authority concerned unless such decision is tainted with mala fide or arbitrary. As already pointed out the reading of a policy decision in a Circular dated 4.6.2001 we do not see any arbitrariness or taint of mala fide.” 13. In view of the said pronouncement, therefore, the attempt made by the petitioners’ counsel to sustain the continuation of the petitioners to the extent of the existing accounts also is not sustainable. 14. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners mentioned about pendency of industrial dispute in between the parties. The said industrial dispute, however, does not relate to the precise question involved in this writ petition, and as such, the petitioners are free to agitate the reference which is subject matter of said industrial dispute. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. It is needless to mention that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim suspension granted by this Court on 03-12-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.38641 of 2010 stands vacated. ________________ 03-11-2011 kvr