The limitations of writ jurisdiction in addressing large-scale problems and the need for effective policy decisions by the relevant authorities.

1. Heard the appellant in person, learned Counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India as well as State Bank of India and also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. Appellant filed a writ application in his capacity as a consumer/account holder of State Bank of India, Boring Road Branch, Patna. His initial prayer was for a direction for initiating disciplinary proceeding against two officials of Reserve Bank of India posted at Patna for their alleged failure to discharge their duties in redressing the grievance of the petitioner and also for a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to formulate consumer friendly policy in the matter of issuance of certificates regarding counterfeit currency notes. Subsequently, the appellant-writ petitioner also sought a relief for compensation for himself and his clear stand was/is that the writ application is not by way of public interest litigation.

3. The factual background which led to filing of the writ application may be notified in brief. The petitioner, who belongs to Indian Police Service, withdrew Rs. 60,000.00 from Boring Road, Patna Branch of the State Bank of India on 24.3.1999. On request, he was paid in currency notes of Rs. 500.00 denomination which consisted of 100 notes in a sealed pack and 20 loose notes. The appellant-writ petitioner went to deposit the amount in his provident fund account at Patliputra Colony Branch of the State Bank of India where he was told that 22 notes in the sealed pack were counterfeits. He came back to the Boring Road Branch where he was offered exchange of the alleged counterfeits notes but the petitioner refused to return the notes in question as he suspected the involvement of some officials of the said Branch. Thereafter, he met local senior officials of Reserve Bank of India as well as of the State Bank of India. He was not satisfied with the suggested procedure by the Reserve Bank of India and hence, after lodging of a criminal case and making correspondence with high functionaries of the two Banks, he filed the writ petition in question which has been finally disposed of with certain observations and directions vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2000.

4. In the impugned order, learned Single Judge has noticed the stand of the officials of the Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India regarding their general policy concerning counterfeit notes and also their concern with regard to particular complaint of the writ petitioner. After examining all the relevant materials, the Writ Court came to a conclusion that both the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India were cognizant of the problem of counterfeit currency and since such problem is of very large dimensions, it is difficult to be dealt with under writ jurisdiction. We have also examined the relevant materials and we are not persuaded to take a different view in the matter. Effective policy decisions in such matters has to be left to the wisdom of the experts in the Reserve Bank and the Ministry concerned of the Government of India.

5. So far as action against the officials concerned is concerned, it appears from the records that the cashier concerned of the Boring Road Branch of State Bank of India has been placed under suspension and a criminal case has also been registered as Budha Colony PS case No. 104 of 1999 and the investigation is in progress. In such circumstances, the Writ Court rightly relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Gautam Sinha V/s. The State Bank of India 2000 (3) PLJR 143 (SC) and declined to issue any formal direction to the respondents to take disciplinary action, as prayed for. But, the Court has also made a proper observation that it is expected that the management would not fail to take suitable action against the guilty officials and employees apart from the action that may be taken against them by the investigating agency in connection with the criminal case.

6. The appellant h