Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.

1. Whoever comes in contact with the present case and the facts involved, would definitely agree, the situation is disastrous. The magnitude of the problem is huge, unless steps taken, it would be an economic disaster. It has social impact too, hence the disaster may extend to the society as well, particularly in Eastern India where the problem has an impeccable effect. Ordinarily, the Court of Law, particularly in civil litigations that would have a dominating effect in the writ jurisdiction as well, would always consider the pleadings and the pleadings only and seldom step out. In public interest litigation, the Court of Law made a departure in the past. The Apex Court did so being empowered by Article 142. We the High Court, are aware of our plenary power under Article 226, even then we ordinarily restrain ourselves in encroaching upon the arena of legislature or the executive as it would create immense difficulty for smooth running of the democracy where all three wings being the legislature, executive and judiciary have different arena of travel. We are perplexed in the present situation as the averments do not fully impress us. At the same time we cannot be a mere on-looker considering the magnitude of the disaster.

2. When we decide litigation, we consider the pleadings and discuss the relevant gist in our judgment to find out the point where the parties would join issue in an adversarial litigation and in other litigations too. In the present case, we would make a departure. We would venture to scan the pleadings with little detail to avoid even a microscopic issue that might not have equal effect with the other issues would have.

BACK DROP:

3. In 70s' to secure the economy of the country and make it stable, the legislature though it fit to nationalise a large banking sector. One of the prime mottos of the legislature that prompted to do so, was to take the bank at the remotest level so that large Indian population would have the fruits of the banking system and to save them from the hands of local moneylenders who were known as blood suckers in our society. It was common in the rural field, a small amount became huge with interest that too, calculated at the compound rate and poor illiterate villagers would succumb to the pressure of the moneylenders being the feudal lords. The members of the poor family would have to serve the moneylenders as bonded labours. To ameliorate the immense hardship of the people at large, nationalised banks came not only as respite but also a tool to empower them and thereby strengthen the economy of the country, particularly the rural economy. The nationalised banks had various schemes to reach to the poor including small savings by piggy banking where monies were collected by agents. The legislature also thought it fit to boost up the small saving mechanism through the postal infrastructure. With the change in the society, particularly due to globalization, huge investments were made in banking sectors. Foreign banks started entering into the arena. The private banks became equally strengthened. To compete with the private and foreign banks, the nationalised banks also started changing their motto and gradually discouraging the rural banking sector as also the small savings. The vultures started entering into the field alluring illiterate, half-literate poor people at large. Thus, the entire small savings market, particularly in the rural area, was silently captured by the vultures. The Sanchayita was pioneer in 70s'. They, however, could not operate in the rural field. They acted in a comparatively small urban area alluring people a high rate of interest. Their modus operandi was different. They used to collect lump sum deposits from the depositors and pay them high rate of interest that they could not get from the market by reinvesting the said sums. Very soon, the system collapsed. The small companies, operating in the same field, came under the Reserve