THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7094 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in crediting the amounts due to the petitioners under the fixed deposits and other accounts as detailed in the annexure to the writ petition, to the loan account of Mr. M.Sudhakar Gupta i.e. O.D.A/c.No.2 of Habsiguda Branch of the second respondent – Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to credit the amounts due to the petitioners under the fixed deposits and other accounts to the loan account of Mr. M.Sudhakar Gupta in O.D. A/c.No.2 of Habsiguda Branch of the second respondent bank, including interest accrued thereon till the date of crediting to the loan account of M.Sudhakar Gupta. Petitioners had fixed deposits ranging from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.72,684/- in the second respondent bank. One Mr. M.Sudhakar Gupta was one of the directors of the second respondent bank. There was a large-scale misuse of funds of the second respondent bank, which resulted in resignation of all the Directors and appointment of Person In-charge Committee. As the second respondent bank was doing business by obtaining license under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued directions from time to time under Section 35A of the Act. It is the grievance of the petitioners that as much as all the deposits are matured and some of the petitioners were having savings bank accounts, in spite of their request, such amounts are not being adjusted to the loan account of one of the Directors, namely, M.Sudhakar Gupta in O.D.A/c.No.2 in Habsiguda Branch of the second respondent bank. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent bank, while denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that in view of restrictions imposed by RBI, withdrawals were permitted only to the limited sums. It is further stated that initially, withdrawals were permitted only of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter, it was revised to Rs.20,000/-. While admitting the loan accounts of the petitioners, it is stated that petitioner Nos.3, 4, 7, 12, 14, 16 and 17 have already withdrawn their deposits and their accounts are closed. With regard to other petitioners, it is stated that as the second respondent – bank is bound by the directions issued in G.O.Rt.No.117, dated 29.01.2008, it cannot deal in any manner with the amounts of the depositors, except under the directions issued by RBI or the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there were directions from RBI to the second respondent bank to the effect that deposits of Rs.1/- to one lakh can be set off against non-performing assets without any condition. In view of the same, he requested for issuance of directions to the second respondent bank to adjust/set off the deposits of the petitioners, whose accounts are not closed, against non-performing asset i.e. O.D. Account of Mr. M.Sudhakar Gupta. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent bank that the said instructions were in force only up to 31.03.2006 and in the absence of any request by the petitioners, they are not entitled to seek adjustment of the deposits with the loan account in O.D. Account No.2 of one of the directors, namely, Mr. M.Sudhakar Gupta. A perusal of fax message, dated 16.01.2006, given by RBI, which is in the nature of a direction to the second respondent bank, indicates that the scheme of adjustment up to Rs. one lakh against non-performing assets was only up to 31.03.2006. In the absence of directives, which are in force, issued by RBI to the second respondent bank, no directions can be issued by this Court as sought in the present writ petition. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that such directions are still in force, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to approach the second respondent bank by making such request. If such request is made, the second respondent bank shall consider the same with reference to the directions, which are in force, and take appropriate steps, as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th FEBRUARY, 2011. kvni