The location of the cause of action determines the jurisdiction of the High Court, and the power of review for quasi-judicial bodies must be expressly conferred by the statute.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) BY this judgment and order we propose to dispose of the present appeal which is filed by the appellant/respondent no. 3 in the writ petition, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 5th December, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition by respondent No. 1, Reserve Bank of India was allowed and the impugned order therein dated 14th September, 2004, being an order on second review petition preferred by the appellant herein, was held to be non-est and was therefore quashed.

( 2 ) THE brief facts relevant for disposing of the present appeal are that in November 1996, the appellant applied to respondent no. 1, namely, the reserve Bank of India (RBI), under Section 22 of the of the Banking Regulation act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for grant of a licence to it to commence banking business. In January, 1999 the RBI, conveyed its approval in principle for the promotion of a local area bank subject to various terms and conditions and finally on 28th July, 2000, granted a licence to the appellant to carry on banking business. It was an express condition of the said licence that the appellant would always maintain a minimum paid up capital of Rs. 5 crores as per the requirement of the RBI Guidelines regarding capital adequacy.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, various irregularities, and in particular the non-maintenance of minimum capital as was required by the RBI Guidelines, were noticed during on-site supervisory visits on two occasions, which were duly intimated to the appellant. In spite of regular reminders, the appellant did not restore the original minimum capital of Rs. 500 lacs which was an essential requirement for grant of the licence and accordingly a Notice to Show Cause was issued to the appellant on 4. 7. 2001.

( 4 ) IN September, 2001, in exercise of powers conferred under section 35a of the Act, the RBI prohibited the appellant from granting any loans and advances, making any investment or incurring liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposit or removal of existing deposit etc. , without the prior approval of the RBI. On 13th November,2001 an oral hearing was granted to the appellant in the course of which it admitted that lapses had occurred and that rectificatory steps would be taken by 22nd december,2001. Time was extended up to 10th January, 2002, but the irregularities were not removed. In these circumstances, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act, the licence granted to the appellant was cancelled vide order dated 16th January, 2002.

( 5 ) THE appellant preferred a statutory appeal against the said order of cancellation under the provisions of Section 22 (5) of the Act, which came to be dismissed on 13th September, 2002. Thereupon, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan in October, 2002 challenging the orders dated 16th, January 2002 and 13th September, 2002. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the appellant also filed a first review petition before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed on 23rd December,2003. One of the grounds for dismissal was that the Appellate Authority did not possess powers to review a previous order.

( 6 ) SUBSEQUENTLY a second review petition was filed on 5th April, 2004 before the same Appellate Authority, which was allowed by an officer different to the one who had decided the appeal, by an order dated 14th september, 2004 and the RBI was directed to restore the licence of the appellant. Thereafter, the writ petition filed by the appellant in the High court of Rajasthan was disposed of on 4th April, 2005 on the ground that during the pendency of the writ petition, final order had been passed by the Appellate authority on 14th September, 2004

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 14th September, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority on the second review petition preferred by the appellant, respondent No. 1 herein filed a writ pet