1. Heard Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel representing the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Narender Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent and Sri M.P. Ugle, learned counsel representing the second respondent.

2. The counsel for the petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of an affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, respective stands taken by R1 and R2 in the counter affidavits and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition in the light of Sections 21, 35 E of the Banking Regulation Act, 1995 and also in the light of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also would maintain that the petitioner is bound to succeed in the Writ Petition even on the strength of the doctrine of 'the legitimate expectation'. The learned counsel would conclude that under law and also on the ground of equity suitable directions are to be issued in favour of the Writ Petitioner.

3. Sri Narender Reddy, learned counsel representing the first respondent had taken this court through the contents of th