3011wp3457.06.odt 1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 2006 Mrs. Smita w/o Pushkaraj Deshpande :: PETITIONER -Versus- The State of Maharashtra Corporation Deptt. & 16 others. :: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The petitioner in person. Mr. N. W. Sambre, Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. Agrawal, Advocate H/F Mr. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. S. Y. Deopujari, Advocate for respondent No. 4. Mr. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondent No. 6. Mr. Asolkar, Advocate for respondent No. 7. Mr. P. M. Chandekar, Advocate for respondent No. 8. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for respondent No. 13. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 30th NOVEMBER, 2009. P. C.: 1. Heard. 2. The party in person submitted that respondent Nagpur Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur is urban Bank and was created and run solely by women having in all 10 branches in Nagpur city. It is contended that respondent No. 1 is an Authority which controls all the cooperative societies in the entire State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 2 is Reserve Bank of India and it supervises and controls the operations of all the Banks in cooperative sector in Nagpur region. 3011wp3457.06.odt 2/8 Respondent No. 3 is Authority who controls the cooperative societies in the city of Nagpur and respondent No. 4- Nagpur Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. is a society formed and registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The affairs of respondent No.4-Bank is managed under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. It is further contended by the party in person that since the affairs of respondent No.4-Bank was managed solely by women, the petitioner had deposited handsome amount by opening account many years ago in the said Bank. She has further submitted that respondents No. 5 to 16 have committed financial irregularity and because of that respondent-2 Reserve Bank of India imposed restrictions under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 w.e.f. 21/9/2004 and directed that no withdrawal should be allowed vide order dated 16/9/2004. Because of this restriction, the depositors were not able to withdraw their money from the respondent-Bank. It is contended that respondent No. 4-Bank by its letter of guarantee dated 27/8/2004 assured the depositors that their deposited amounts are safe in the Bank and the amount deposited could be returned within the prescribed period. Since the Bank, in spite of many requests, did not permit the depositors to withdraw the amount, the depositors made representation dated 15/5/2006 to the Bank and requested to release the amount of the petitioner which was required for medical treatment. The Bank replied that in view of restriction imposed under Section 35-A of the Act by the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the amount for medical treatment. 3. The party in person further submitted that the enquiry under Section 3011wp3457.06.odt 3/8 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act was initiated against the Directors of the Bank and was also concluded. The Enquiry Officer has found that some of the Directors of the Bank were guilty of committing financial irregularities, and therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated against those Directors, however, the respondent did not recover the full amount which was due against those Directors, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition for seeking direction to respondents No. 2 and 4 to permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in the saving account of the respondent-Bank, similarly, to recover the entire amount misappropriated by the Directors of the Bank those who are named by the Enquiry Officer in the report and protect the interest of the depositors including the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was ordered into the affairs and financial illegality of the respondent-Bank on the basis of Audit Report. It is contended that Shri R. S. Muley, retired Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry under Section 88 of the Act vide order dated 22/8/2006. The said Officer completed the enquiry and submitted enquiry report on 24/4/2007. In the report Shri Muley has held that nine Directors and six Officers were responsible for misappropriating the huge amount of Rs. 1685.16 lac. The chart showing names of those Directors and Officers and the amount misappropriated by them is as follows: Sl. No. Name of Director/Officer Amount recoverable (Rs. In lac) 1. Smt. Sunanda Barlinge (Director) 242.81 3011wp3457.06.odt 4/8 2. Smt. Suvarnarekha Chandurkar (Director) 233.94 3. Smt. Pramil Asolkar (Director) 168.20 4. Smt. Suman Kashikar (Director) 147.07 5. Smt. Sunanda Sonarikar (Director) 122.64 6. Smt. Sujata Kale (Director) 171.57 7. Smt. Namita Kale (Director) 72.07 8. Smt. Anuradha Joshi (Director) 160.99 9. Smt. Kalpana Nandeshwar (Director) 157.51 10. Shri Anant Dakshindas (Officer) 37.34 11. Smt. Madhu Sahu (Officer) 43.15 12. Smt. Madhuri Bokare (Officer) 40.95 13. Shri Prakash Deshpande (Officer) 1.38 14. Smt. Neha Lule 10.54 15. Smt. Suruchi Goverdhan (Officer) 75.00 Total 1685.16 5. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader submitted that on 13/6/2007 an application was submitted by the respondent-Bank under Section 98(B) of the Maharashtra Co-op. Societies Act and on the basis thereof this respondent issued recovery certificate dated 18/6/2007 to recover the amount referred in the report dated 24/4/2007 from the Directors and the Officers mentioned in the above referred chart. It is further contended that the amount which was to be recovered from the Directors and the Officers till this date is shown in the following chart: Sl. No. Name of Director/Officer Amount recoverable (Rs. In lac) 1. Smt. Sunanda Barlinge (Director) 65.33 2. Smt. Suvarnarekha Chandurkar (Director) 63.90 3. Smt. Pramil Asolkar (Director) 26.19 4. Smt. Suman Kashikar (Director) 63.35 5. Smt. Sunanda Sonarikar (Director) 26.18 3011wp3457.06.odt 5/8 6. Smt. Sujata Kale (Director) 50.15 7. Smt. Namita Kale (Director) 5.14 8. Smt. Anuradha Joshi (Director) 57.37 9. Smt. Kalpana Nandeshwar (Director) 49.87 10. Shri Anant Dakshindas (Officer) 21.56 11. Smt. Madhu Sahu (Officer) 16.36 12. Smt. Madhuri Bokare (Officer) -------- 13. Shri Prakash Deshpande (Officer) 1.38 14. Smt. Neha Lule 4.30 15. Smt. Suruchi Goverdhan (Officer) ------- Total 486.92 6. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the total amount which was to be recovered is Rs.1685.16 lac, the amount which is recovered is Rs. 1198.04 lac and now the amount is required to be recover is Rs. 486.92. It is submitted that some of the Directors/Officers have filed appeal against the order of recovery and those appeals are pending for decision. However, no interim orders are passed by the appellate Authority. The learned Government Pleader assures this Court that if there is no legal impediment in recovering the balance amount from the Directors and Officers, the same shall be recovered from them at the earliest. 7. Mr. Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India has filed an affidavit dated 27/11/2009 on record wherein it is stated that the Reserve Bank of India being satisfied that allowing respondent No.4-Bank to carry on banking business any further would be detrimental to the interest of the depositors, and therefore, by order dated 30/8/2009 the Reserve Bank of India has cancelled the license of Nagpur Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. The said order is 3011wp3457.06.odt 6/8 annexed with the affidavit. In the affidavit it is further stated that the Reserve Bank of India has requisitioned the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune to make an order for winding up of respondent No.4-Bank and appoint the liquidator and asked him to take charge of the property of respondent No.4-Bank. A copy of letter dated 02/9/2009 issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Registrar, Co-Op. Societies is also annexed with the affidavit. 8. Mr. Deopujari, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4-Bank has also filed pursis dated 27/11/2009 in writ petition No. 3456 of 2006, wherein it is stated that the Reserve Bank of India vide communication dated 02/9/2009 informed respondent No.4-Bank regarding cancellation of license to carry on banking business. The Commissioner for Corporation & Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune by order under Section 110-A(ii) of the Maharashtra Co- Operative Societies Act, 1960 dated 09/11/2009 has ordered winding up of respondent No.4-the Nagpur Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and has appointed Board of Liquidators consist of : (1) Shri Jaisingh Thakur, Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, (2) Shri Pankaj Wankhede, Assistant Registrar, Cooperatuve Societies, Nagpur and (3) Shri S. B. Gode, Special Auditor, Class-II, District Special Auditor, Nagpur. 9. In view of the above referred undisputed facts, it is evident that the license of the Nagpur Mahila Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd., Nagpur has been cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India and the Board of Liquidators has also been appointed by the Commissioner for Cooperation under Section 110-A(ii) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and therefore, it is for the said Board 3011wp3457.06.odt 7/8 to discharge its duty in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard. So far as the grievance of the party in person in the present petition and the petitioners in other connected petitions are concerned who are depositors is mainly in respect of the procedure and the steps which the State Government will be taking for recovering the amount from the Directors and the Officers who are held responsible for misappropriating the amount by the Enquiry Officer who has conducted enquiry under Section 88 of the Societies Act and shown their names in the enquiry report. 10. From the above referred facts, the total amount which is misappropriated appears to be Rs. 1685.16 lac out of which Rs. 486.92 lac is recovered from them. Now, the depositors are concerned with the remaining amount which is required to be recovered from the Directors and the Officers. It is no doubt true that the learned Government Pleader has made statement that appropriate steps will be taken to recover the said amount, if there is no other impediment in doing so, since some of the Directors and Officers have filed appeals against the order of recovery, etc. However, it is high time that those who have, by their misdeeds allegedly harmed innocent depositors, should not be required to wait in perpetuity. We want to make it clear and expect the State Government to take immediate and appropriate steps in accordance with law to recover the balance amount from the Directors and the Officers without wasting any further time provided there is no other legal impediment. Merely filing of appeal, according to us, cannot be treated as legal impediment unless there is interim order passed by the competent Authority. We hope and trust that our order will be 3011wp3457.06.odt 8/8 considered in the right perspective and the State Government shall act accordingly in the interest of the depositors. It is also made clear that we have not decided the issue/s on merits which are pending before the Appellate Authority in appeals and it is for those Appellate Authorities to decide them on its own merit and in accordance with law. 11. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and for the reasons mentioned herein-above, we do not want to keep writ petition pending, and therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE wwl