THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.25228 and 25284 of 2007 Date: 07.10.2009 W.P.No.25228 of 2007 Between : Smt. Renuka Rai … Petitioner And The Chairman, Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Malakpet, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents W.P.No.25284 of 2007 Between : Sri Sarveswar Raj Srivastav … Petitioner And The Chairman, Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Malakpet, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.25228 and 25284 of 2007 ORAL COMMON ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since the subject matter and the relief sought for in both these writ petitions are same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Sri M.P. Ugle, learned Standing Counsel for Reserve Bank of India appearing for respondent No.3 as well as the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent No.5. 3. W.P.No.25228 of 2007 is taken up basing on the petition sent by one Smt. Renuka Rai with the following relief: “….to call for the records and remarks from the respondents herein in and connected to (1) Depositing of certain amounts by the petitioner herein in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Malakpet, Hyderabad and (ii) Granting of Rs.29,000/- (Rupees twenty nine thousand only) on 14.10.2005 and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) on 31.7.2007 on the direction of respondent No.3 and also to pass appropriate orders directing the respondents herein to sanction an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) out of the petitioner’s balance amount at the Vasavi Bank to meet children’s education….” 4. W.P.No.25284 of 2007 is taken up basing on the petition sent by one Sri Sarveswar Raj Srivastav with the following relief: “….to call for the records and remarks from the respondents herein in and connected to (1) Depositing of Rs.1,51,000/- (Onelakh fifty one thousand only) by the petitioner herein in Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, few years back and (ii) action of the respondent No.3 on the application dated 27.7.2007 of the petitioner herein for sanction of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to meet his open heart surgery expenses and also to pass appropriate orders directing the respondents herein to sanction an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) from his deposited amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) lying at the bank to meet petitioner’s medical expenses ….” 5. From the counter affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India, the third respondent herein, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that initially the depositors were allowed to withdraw not more than Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on various grounds and in that process different directions were being given from time to time. The main object in issuing such directions appears to be in the light of the weak financial position of the Cooperative Banks and all the depositors are equal and no preferential payment can be made to any depositor, except on the ground of hardship, as stipulated in the guidelines issued on 5.11.2004. 6. It is further informed that as per the existing instructions of the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioners and other similarly placed depositors were permitted to withdraw a sum of about Rs.92,000/-, meaning thereby substantial sum out of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was initially allowed to be withdrawn, had been withdrawn by the petitioners. 7. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India that as per the present directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioners or any other similarly placed depositors are not entitled to withdraw any further amount owing to the re-organisation of the system, which is otherwise called as “Financial Reconstruction and Revival Scheme” in terms of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.117, dated 29.1.2008. It is further stated that the Cooperative banks also cannot permit the depositors to withdraw any amount during the subsistence of the said Reconstruction and Revival Scheme. 8. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 2.3.2009, in W.P.No.25709 of 2007, observed that this Court cannot direct the third respondent bank to pay the amount since the Vasavi Bank is under reconstruction and all payments should be made as per the Scheme of Reconstruction. 9. We are in agreement with the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Reserve Bank of India and we are of the view that there is neither any arbitrariness nor irrationality in the directions issued by the third respondent-Reserve Bank of India and the consequential denial for payment of the balance amount to the petitioners, which is very marginal. 10. In that view of the matter, following the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.25709 of 2007, dated 2.3.2009, and having regard to the observations made by this Court supra, we are of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be acceded to. 11. Subject to above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 07-10-2009 NOTE : Issue C.C. in three days. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.25228 and 25284 of 2007 07-10-2009 (Msr)