(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3946 OF 1994 1. Laxman s/o. Sonaji Uphad, Aged 38 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. village Pangri Gosavi, Taluka : Mantha, District : Jalna. 2. Balkrishna s/o. Manikrao Kulkarni, Aged 40 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. village Pangari Gosavi, Taluka : Mantha, District : Jalna. .. Petitioners. versus 1. Union of India. .. Petition dismissed as against respondent 2. Reserve Bank of India, nos.1 and 2 vide order established under the Reserve dated 24-2-1997. Bank of India Act, having its Head Office at Bombay, through its Governor. 3. Aurangabad-Jalna Gramin Bank, having its Head Office at Samarthanagar, Aurangabad, through its Chairman. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. B.G. Deshpande and Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Advocates, for the petitioner. Petition dismissed as against respondent nos.1 and 2 vide order dated 24-2-1997. Mr. D.S. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.L. Kulkarni, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the decision of the respondent no.3 / Bank for closing down its branch at Pangri Gosavi (Taluka : Mantha, District : Jalna). It is the contention of the petitioner, that by closing of the said branch of the Bank, great hardship is caused to the persons residing at Pangri Gosavi. 2. At the relevant time, the said Bank was running into losses. As such, certain directions were issued to it by the Reserve Bank of India for improving its financial efficacy. One of the norms for relocation of the branches was as under : (3) 1) Relocation of the existing loss making branches will be at places where Agricultural Produce Market Committee are in existence, blocks or District Head Quarters. Undisputedly, the Branch at Pangri Gosavi was running into losses. As such, the Board of Directors of the Bank had resolved to shift the branch at Gosavi Pangri to Mantha which was having an Agricultural Produce Market Committee. It is further to be noted that Mantha was also headquarter of the newly created Taluka. 3. It can thus be clearly seen that the decision taken by the respondent no.4 is on the basis of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also on valid and germane reasons. It cannot be said that the respondent no.3 has acted in an arbitrary or irrational manner while taking the decision. Apart from that, we also feel that the activity of the respondent no.3 is a banking activity and while taking decision regarding location or relocation of the branches, it would always be guided by commercial considerations about which we do not possess any expertise. It is, therefore, not possible for this court to interfere with the decision of the respondent no.3 unless it found that the decision is either arbitrary or irrational and that too, of (4) such a nature that it shocks conscience of the court. 4. In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3946