L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the chairman of the Hyderabad Co-operative bank Limited, Yakutpura, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent, (for short the bank ). He challenges the notice dated 28-8-2003 issued by the 1st respondent-Joint Registrar/ district Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad. Through the impugned notice, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner and other members of the Board of Directors of the bank to show-cause as to why an order shall not be passed superseding the Board of Directors, under Section 34 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short the Act ). The other members of the board of Directors are said to have authorised the petitioner to file this writ petition.

( 2 ) THE case as presented by the petitioner is as under :

( 3 ) THE bank was established with due registration under the Act and obtaining necessary permission from the 4th respondent- reserve Bank of India (for short the rbi ) and that it was operating within the banking norms. In the months of September and October 2002, the RBI caused an inspection of the bank and was satisfied with its functioning. The aspects, such as cash Reserve Ratio, etc, were found to be in better position than the stipulated norms and limits. The petitioner was elected as chairman in April 2003 and he is functioning as such.

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent issued the impugned notice referring to the letter dated 18-8-2003 addressed to it by the rbi. There was hardly anything for the petitioner or the Directors to respond to it, since nothing was indicated in the show-cause notice nor the letter addressed by the RBI was made available to them.

( 5 ) THE petitioner contends that though Section 115-B of the Act enables the rbi to issue necessary directions, even for supersession, such a course of action can be resorted to, only after giving an opportunity to the affected parties. Since the RBI did not issue show-cause notice to the petitioners and the other members of the Board of Directors, requiring them to show-cause as to why the Board of directors shall not be superseded, the decision, if any, that emanated from the RBI cannot be sustained, and that equally unsustainable are the consequential steps taken by the 1 st respondent.

( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the RBI, serious objection is taken as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to them, the writ petition challenging a show-cause notice is not maintainable. It is their case that the impugned show-cause notice itself was unwarranted in view of the fact that once a direction is issued by them under section 115-B of the Act, the 1st respondent has no other alternative except to implement it straightaway. Copious reference is made to the inspection conducted by them into the functioning of the bank and noticing of several irregularities during the course of inspection. It is also stated that ample opportunity was given to the bank to rectify the defects and ultimately when it emerged that the lapses and deficiencies were persistent, direction was issued under section 115-B to supersede the Board of directors of the bank.

( 7 ) THE 1st respondent filed a counter- affidavit stating that the impugned notice was issued in the context of the direction received by him from the RBI. He tries to sustain the same by referring to the provisions of Section 115-B of the Act.

( 8 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned notice directs the petitioner to show-cause as to why the board of Directors shall not be superseded without indicating the reasons for the supersession. He submits that the very basis of issuance of show-cause notice viz. , the letter addressed by the RBI to supersede the Board of Directors, is contrary to law, inasmuch as the petitioner was not put on notice before such a decision was taken. He contends that the show-cause notice is, in fact, a futile exercise, inasmuch as the 1 st respondent has not even chosen to furnish

Click Here to Read the rest of this document