IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13552 of 2002 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.ASHOK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.No.13552 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in refusing to refund the amount deposited by him in various fixed deposits as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to declare that he is entitled to withdraw his money deposited in the second respondent bank. The petitioner contended that he deposited various into the second respondent bank under various deposit certificates. Sometime later, the Chairman of the bank died. In view of the sudden demise of the Chairman, the depositors started doubting the financial position of the bank. But, in view of the timely action taken by the police, some of the borrowers were apprehended and it appears that some of the borrowers of the bank started repaying the loan to avoid prosecution etc. The Reserve Bank of India issued a circular that the second respondent bank shall not disburse the amounts of the depositors whose deposit amount is more than Rs.1,000/-. As the respondents failed to repay the amount covered by the deposits, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above. The first respondent filed a counter mentioning that the Government of Andhra Pradesh formulated a scheme of reconstruction and the deposits will be paid as per the scheme. Since the second respondent bank is covered by the scheme, the payments will be made as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, therefore, no direction can be given by this Court for the repayment of the amount against the scheme formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. In the light of the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned for repayment of the deposit amount as per the scheme formulated by the Government. ___________________ DR. G. YETHIRAJULU, J Date:21-02-2008 YCR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }