IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3112 of 2009 Between: The Ongole Cooperative Bank Limited R.P. Road, Ongole, Prakasam District, Rep. by its Secretary B. Srinath S/o. Madhava Rao ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Consumers Forum Prakasam District at Ongole rep. by its Presiding Officer 2 Pillutla Sri Ram Murthy S/o. Subrahmanyam R/o. 37-1-425, IInd Road, Ram Nagar, Ongole, Prakasam District. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction, declaring the Order dated 14-7-2008 in C.C.No. 139 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India, Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) Petitioner – Ongole Cooperative Bank Limited, questions the order of the District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District dated 14.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.139 of 2008 allowing the complaint of the second respondent directing the petitioner – bank to pay the amount to the first respondent along with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation apart from Rs.1,000/- towards costs. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner – bank submits that as the order of the District Forum has not been complied with, the second respondent filed a petition under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) for prosecution against the Management of the petitioner – bank. He further submits that in order to run the banking business the petitioner has to follow the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) from time to time and as per the instructions of RBI the petitioner- bank has to maintain the Cash Reserve Ratio (CRR) and Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) and for not maintaining the said CRR and SLR, the RBI imposed a penalty of Rs.36,47,943/- vide its letter dated 14.11.2008. 3. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the affairs of the bank in not maintaining CRR and SLR and had the petitioner – bank paid the matured amount to the agriculturists promptly it would have avoided the penalty imposed by the RBI. Merely because the RBI imposed the penalty, it cannot be said that the petitioner – bank is not liable to honour its commitment to the depositors and the orders passed by the District Consumer Forum. However, the petitioner – bank has an effective alternative remedy of appeal before the State Commission under Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act as against the impugned order of the District Forum. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, in fact, in respect of certain cases, the petitioner – bank has availed the remedy of appeal and the State Commission also granted stay on deposit of half of the amount as ordered by the District Forum. 5. As the petitioner has got an alternative effective remedy of appeal, We are not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of four (4) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 18, 2009 DSK