JUDGMENT :

S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the directives issued by the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “the RBI”) Mumbai dated 23rd, 24th, 26th September, 2019 and 3rd and 14th October, 2019.

2. The further relief sought is to direct the RBI to withdraw the restrictions imposed in exercise of its power conferred under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1949”).

3. The restrictions placed on withdrawal of amounts by the depositors is questioned and then it is said that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature thereof to the RBI and to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to make sufficient funds available for easy and unhindered withdrawal of the deposits of the depositors and, particularly, to be utilised for their day-to-day expenses, health and educational needs and business requirements.

4. A relief in the nature of a direction to the Central and the State Government to exercise its powers under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2002”) and particularly, to provide aid to the bank in question is also sought.

5. Since the arguments are common in all matters so also the reliefs, we had heard them together. Each of these matters were listed “for admission” from time to time.

6. On a notice being taken by the RBI, it has filed an affidavit in reply. The contents of which would be adverted by us little later.

7. For convenience sake, we take the facts from Writ Petition (L) No. 3030 of 2019.

8. The three petitioners in that petition are the residents of Mumbai and account holders in the sixth respondent bank known as Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the P&MC Bank”).

9. The respondents to this petition are the Union of India, RBI, the Chief General Manager of RBI, Central Office, the Central Registrar-Multi-State Co-operative Societies, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers' Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare, Krishibhawan, New Delhi, the State of Maharashtra and the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation.

10. The petitioners say that they have their accounts in the P&MC Bank. The details thereof are provided in para-2. In para-3 it is stated that petitioner no. 2 is engaged to get married to a boy of business family at Ahmedabad sometime in December, 2019. The preparations of this wedding were about to start, but by then the impugned directives of the RBI started pouring in. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are unable to arrange enough funds for this marriage. It is quite likely that engagement may break down. Thus the directives of the RBI came as a shock. The third petitioner has a son, who is a graduate in Science and has done his diploma in Civil Aviation. At present, he is working in a Call Centre, but petitioner no. 3's son received an offer of employment with a Aviation Company. That requires the petitioner no. 3's son to undergo a training. For the training, a heavy amount has to be paid in Indian rupees towards instruction fees, transportation, accommodation cost, visa and other expenses. The third petitioner would, therefore, require an additional amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- for completion of his training programme. Today, the result is that if the terms and conditions of the employment letter/offer are not complied with, then, there would not be a post training employment opportunity fructifying in favour of the son of the third petitioner.

11. The petition proceeds to set out that the respondents have an obligation and duty to ensure that the depositors with a multi-state scheduled urban co-operative bank, duly registered under the Act of 2002, do not suffer. All the more, when the bank was established on 13th February, 1984. It has ab