IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.776 OF 2006 Mr. Tarun Jamnadas Ghia...Petitioner Vs 1.Reserve Bank of India...Respondents & Ors. Petitioner in person Mr. Kunal Damle i/b. Udwadia & Udeshi for Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. REBELLO F.I. REBELLO F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE DATE DATE :31ST MARCH, 2006. P.C. . On behalf of Reserve Bank of India their learned Counsel produces communication dated March 30, 2006 from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India of which the petitioner is a member. That communication clearly reveals that the petitioner’s firm did not meet the requirements of the R.B.I. norms. The lprocedure set out by the R.B.I. is that the forms are submitted to the Indian Institute of Chartered Accountants of India which in turn if the firm satisfies the requirements of the norms laid down by the R.B.I. forwards the same to the R.B.I. In the instant case in the communication addressed to R.B.I. to their query it has been specifically set out that the petitioner did not meet the requirement and in these circumstances the firm’s name has not been forwarded. Considering the above, in our opinion, this would not be a fit case for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction as there has been no arbitrary action on the part of the R.B.I. Petition disposed of accordingly. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO J) REBELLO J) REBELLO J) (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)