1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2396 OF 2009 DSL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ... Petitioners. vs. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.A. Dada, Sr. Adv., with Mukul Tuly, Swati Deshpande, Misbah Dada, Jamshed Ansari i/by S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. H.V. Mehta with M.S. Bharadwaj for the Respondent no. 1. Mr. V.R. Dhond with Dhiraj Mhetre i/by Mahernosh Humranwala for respondent no. 2. Mr. A.H. Khare i/by Khare Legal Chambers for respondent no.3. Mr. Shiraz Rustamjee i/by Little & Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Anup Khaitan for respondent no. 5. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010 2 P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court being aggrieved by the credit information published by respondent no. 3 which is a credit information company as constituted under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (for short, CIC(R) Act). It is the case of the petitioners that they had repeated correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India, Respondent No. 2, to exercise its power under Section 18 of the CIC (R) Act and appoint an arbitrator to resolve all inter se claims, disputes and differences which may arise as between petitioners on the one hand and respondent no. 3, Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., respondent no.4, Bank of Maharashtra and respondent No. 5 Dena Bank in respect of enforcement and implementation of the provisions of the CIC (R) Act and, therefore, the petitioners have not only restricted their prayer for seeking directions against the Reserve Bank of India but has also sought declaration to declare part of the provisions of the CIC (R) Act, 2005 as unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India as they infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and other ancillary reliefs. 3 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We need not examine the challenge made by the petitioners as regards the constitutional validity of the part of the CIC (R) Act, 2005 as it is not germane to the issue raised in the petition and prima facie we do not find that it infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to take a decision in the matter of referring the dispute raised by the petitioners under Section 18 of the CIC (R) Act, 2005 within 8 weeks from the date of passing of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)