( 1 ) THE Reserve Bank of India preferred this writ Appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 17-12-2003 in w. P. No. 18519 of 2003.

( 2 ) ). The 4th respondent herein, who is the chairman of the 3rd respondent-Hyderabad co-operative Bank Limited, Yakutpura, hyderabad, filed the Writ Petition to quash the notice dated 28-8-2003 issued by the 1 st respondent-Joint Registrar/district cooperative Officer, Hyderabad, whereunder the 4th respondent and other members of the Board of Directors of the Bank were called upon to show cause as to why an order shall not be passed superseding the board of Directors under Section 34 of A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act" ).

( 3 ) ). The 4th respondent-Writ Petitioner pleaded that the 3rd respondent-Bank was established with due registration under the act and it has been operating after obtaining necessary permission from the Reserve bank of India in compliance with the Banking norms. It appears that during the months of september and October 2002 the Reserve bank of India caused an inspection of the 3rd respondent - Bank. The 4th respondent appears to have been elected as Chairman subsequently in April, 2003. He claims that during the inspection it was found by the reserve Bank of India that the cash reserve ratio etc. , are in better position than the stipulated norms. However, a notice dated 28-8-2003 was issued by the 1 st respondent - Joint Registrar/district Co-operative Officer, hyderabad calling upon the Chairman and other Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent-Bank to show cause as to why orders shall not be passed for supersession of the Board of Directors of the Bank and appoint an Administrator under Sec. 115-B of the Act in terms of the requisition of the reserve Bank of India dated 18-8-2003. The grievance of the 4th respondent is that a copy of the requisition of the Reserve Bank of India dated 18-8-2003 on the basis of which the show cause notice dated 28-8-2003 was issued was neither furnished nor the contents of the said requisition were revealed. It is contended that since the substance of the so-called requisition of the reserve Bank of India dated 18-8-2003 was not revealed, the 4th respondent was unable to submit any effective explanation to the show cause notice and thus the entire action is in violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice without reference to any particular instance or circumstances by which it was alleged that the interest of the affairs of the Bank were being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors. In the circumstances, the impugned show cause notice dated 28-8-2003 was sought to be quashed seeking a further direction not to interfere with the management and administration of affairs of the 3rd respondent-Bank by the elected Managing Committee.

( 4 ) ). On behalf of the 1st respondent a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the impugned notice has been rightly issued in exercise of the power conferred under section 115-B of the Act, in terms of the requisition received from the Reserve Bank of India.

( 5 ) ). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India it is stated that the RBI under Section 115-B (iii) of the Act is competent to issue necessary directions in public interest and in the interest of depositors and that the Registrar of cooperative Societies is bound by such requisition. It is further stated that the registrar of Co-operative Societies has no discretion except to pass order for supersession of the Board of Directors and appointment of Administrator when a requisition is issued by the RBI under section 115-B (iii) of the Act. it is contended that the power exercised by the Registrar of co-operative Societies under Section 34 of the Act is different and distinct to that of the power under Section 115-B (iii) of the Act, and therefore, no further notice is required to the 3rd respondent-Bank or to its Boa