: 1 : wp.3853.2010 vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3853 OF 2010 The Administrative Officer Sangli, Miraj & Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation Primary Education Board .. Petitioner V/s. The Liquidator Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.G.H. Keluskar for the Petitioner Mr.S.R. Ganbavle for the Respondent No.1 Mr.Zoeb Cutlerywala I/b Udwadia & Udeshi for Resp. No.2 Ms.S.S. Bhende, AGP, for Resp. No.3 Mr.Shyam Mehta with Rajesh Talekar I/b K.Ashar & Co. for Resp. No.4 CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED: AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Keluskar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and we have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant General Manager of Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (Respondent No.4) as well as the affidavit of Assistant General : 2 : wp.3853.2010 Manager of Reserve Bank of India (Urban Banks Department). The petitioner pursuant to the Resolution passed in its Education board investing an amount of Rs.15 lacs initially and thereafter an amount of Rs.2,50,97,500/- with Respondent No.1 Cooperative Bank i.e. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. However, the State Government appointed a Liquidator for the said Bank under the directions of the RBI. Some teachers from the employment of the Education Board had retired and their legal dues close to about Rs.85 crores were due to be paid. Hence, the petitioner approached the Bank for withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount and the petitioner could not succeed in the same as the bank is under liquidation. 2. The affidavit filed by the RBI states that till the year 1965, the Cooperative Banks were not regulated by the RBI and subsequently the Deposits Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (for short, `DICGC') was established. The Banking Regulations Act 1949 was made applicable to the Cooperative Banks by amending the Banking Regulations Act 1949 in the year 1965. The DICGC gives guarantee of protection to the deposited amount to some extent and, therefore, the claim made by the Petitioner could only be considered by the said Corporation. A copy of the order dated 6.1.2009 passed by the RBI in : 3 : wp.3853.2010 respect of Respondent No.1 Bank is placed on record alongwith the affidavit in reply. 3. Respondent No.4 Corporation has stated in its affidavit that its liability to satisfy the claims of the depositors of the insured bank as defined in section 2 (I) of the DICGC is limited to Rs.1 lakh only in cash deposit, irrespective of the amount of deposit. It has been further pointed out that the Liquidator of the Respondent Bank submitted the claims list with the Corporation to 22.9.2009 and the petitioner's name was included in the said list. Out of 17 claims, 10 claims have been paid an amount of Rs.1 lakh each. The Corporation has paid to some of them whereas others have been paid by the Liquidator but subject to a maximum limit of Rs.1 lakh. Respondent No.4 is a statutory authority established under the DICGC Act and under the said Act, the Depositors of the insured bank have been granted protection but subject to the prescribed limit. However, the claim of the Petitioners is much more than Rs.1 lakh. As per the amended prayers, the petitioner is seeking directions against respondent No.4 to discharge its liability by depositing with the Liquidator or respondent No.1 Bank the sum of Rs.5,16,55,369/-. We are afraid such a direction cannot be issued against a statutory body and de horse the provisions of the DICGC Act, : 4 : wp.3853.2010 1961. The petitioner will have to therefore follow up with the Liquidator and wait for the assets of the Bank being sold. As of now, we are satisfied that the directions as prayed for in this petition cannot be issued against Respondent No.4 and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have no resources as of now to refund the amount. 4. Hence, the Petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)