1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3602 OF 2009 Bhai Gangabhishan Thavare .. Petitioner Versus The Beed Zilla Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed .. Respondent Shri R.L.Kute, Advocate (appointed) for the petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondent – State Shri D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent-Bank CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 9th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner initially had appeared in person. At the request of the petitioner who appeared in person, we have appointed Shri R.L.Kute as an amicus curiae in order to assist the Court in its adjudication. 2. This petition ostensibly appeared to be public interest litigation campaigning cause of the agriculturists who had not been granted the loan by the respondent – Bank i.e. the cheques issued by the Dindrud Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. The petition does not contain any averment that the petitioner has been authorised or requested by the aforesaid agriculturists to 2 file this petition who had been denied loan by the Bank. The petitioner who claims to be the social worker is campaigning the cause of an agriculturists who have not authorised him to file the present petition. Moreover, it is not as if the agriculturists belong to that strata of society i.e. either of poor community or the illiterate persons. In the light of that fact, therefore, according to us this is not a bona fide petition in public interest by a petitioner who is campaigning the cause of the agriculturists who are unable to come to the Court in respect of their grievances. In any event, on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent – Bank, it is evident that the respondent – Bank had found that the fraudulent proposals had been forwarded by the Dindrud Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. and upon conducting an enquiry, loan came to be granted in favour of genuine bona fide claimants while the claims of others came to be rejected. 3. In the light of that, therefore, according to us no case for interfering in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Consequently, this petition being devoid of merit is summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to Shri R.L.Kute, learned Counsel appointed by this Court as amicus 3 curiae at Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand). In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/3602.09wp