HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5109 of 2001 Date : 16.12.2009 Between : M/s.Harshini Egg Farms (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director …..Petitioner And The Vysya Bank Limited, Asset Recovery Management Branch, Mumbai, rep. by its Assistant General Manager & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5109 of 2001 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner-Company seeks a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not extending to it, the settlement dues, as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, dated 27.07.2000. 2. The Reserve Bank of India has issued certain guidelines for recovery of dues relating to non-performing assets of public sector banks. Even according to the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is a loanee from the 1st respondent-bank, which is not a public sector bank, but still, it seeks extension of said guidelines to the 1st respondent-bank, alleging that those guidelines are discriminatory. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not impleaded the Reserve Bank of India as a party- respondent to this writ petition, but still, it pleads that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are discriminatory, because, such guidelines are not extended to the private sector banks. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the Vysya Bank is also one of the banks notified as a scheduled bank as per Schedule-II appended to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Whether Vysya bank is a scheduled bank or not, is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the present writ petition. The Reserve Bank of India, while issuing the guidelines, dated 27th July 2000, has restricted the application of such guidelines only to the public sector banks. Though the Vysya bank may be a scheduled bank as per the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, but still, it is a private sector bank, and as the guidelines are only applicable to the public sector banks, the petitioner cannot seek for implementation of those guidelines to it. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2-National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), it is stated that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent is a Corporation established under the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981, and that it has not granted any funding assistance to the petitioner M/s.Harshini Egg Farms (P) Ltd., but, it has only extended re-finance to the 1st respondent-Vysya bank. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has no direct dealing with the petitioner- Company. 5. Merely because the 2nd respondent has re- financed the 1st respondent-bank, the petitioner cannot seek the relief of extending the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, to the 1st respondent, which are applicable only to the public sector banks. The petitioner has entered into loan agreement with the 1st respondent-bank and the 2nd respondent has merely re-financed the 1st respondent-bank. In that view of the matter, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. As the 1st respondent is a private sector bank, the guidelines, dated 27th of July 2000, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, are not applicable to it, and therefore, there is no basis for the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th December 2009 ajr