J.B. Koshy, J.

In these group of cases, the main question to be decided is whether Co-operative banks are liable to comply with the directions of the reserve bank of India issued from time to time. W.A.No.707 of 2003 was filed by Wandoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No.26589, of 2002. The above O.P. was filed for a declaration that the registration of Wandoor Co-Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., fourth, respondent in the O.P. in violation of the provisions of the Banking Regulation A ct, 1949 (in short B. R. Act) and not to permit the fourth respondent to function as a Rural Bank. The learned single Judge found that the fourth respondent was not a primary agricultural credit co-operative society as defined under S.2(c) of the Co-operative Societies Act as the bye-laws would show that it was for providing credit facilities for industry, education, trade and employment and the above Rural Cooperative Bank is, in fact, an Urban Co-operative Bank and licence from the Reserve Bank of India was necessary for functioning of the above bank. As per S.22 read with S.56 of the Banking Regulation Act (for short ''the Act''), no Co-operative society shall carry on banking business unless it is a primary credit society or is a cooperative bank and holds licence issued in that behalf. The learned Judge also referred to Circular No.4 of 2003 issued by the Registrar wherein the following directions were issued:

"1. All registered unlicensed urban Co-operative Banks are directed to stop any violation of Banking Regulation Act based on the common judgment of the Hon''ble High Court of Kerala.

2. All the existing unlicensed Urban Co-operative Banks are directed to change their names as Urban Co-operative Societies by making corresponding changes in the clauses of the bye-laws within two months from the date of this Circular."

Since the provisions of the Act were not complied with, registration granted by the Join; Registrar was set aside and the Joint Registrar was directed to consider the matter afresh in the light of Circular No.4 of 2003 issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies after giving opportunity to fourth respondent of being heard. Aggrieved by the above order, fourth respondent filed W.A.No.707 of 2003. W.A.No.752 of 2003 was filed against the judgment passed by the learned single .Judge in O.P.No.26588 of 2002. The above O.P. was filed by the Part in Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. which was holding proper licence issued as per the B.R. Act for a declaration that fourth respondent therein, namely, Cherukode Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. was granted registration to do banking business without proper consideration of the matter. The learned single Judge set aside the registration and directed to reconsider the matter and fourth respondent Cherukode Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. filed W.A.No.752 of 2003. O.P.No.440 of 2002 is filed by members of Kottakkal Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. which has got licence issued by fifth respondent Reserve Bank under S.56(p) of the B.R. Act. According to the petitioners, the second respondent Janakeeya Co-operative Urban Bank Limited was granted registration illegally as licence was not granted to it by the Reserve Bank of India. It was also submitted that the above bank started functioning in the area allotted to the petitioners against the provisions of Co-operative Societies Act and Reserve Bank of India is entitled to issue directions as per S.35A of the Act read with S.56 (10) and it cannot function as an unlicensed bank. Even though a detailed counter affidavit was filed showing that it was granted registration as a Co-operative society, it is not stated that the above bank got any licence to do banking business.

2. O.P.No.4383 of 2003 is filed by representatives of various urban Co-operative Banks contending that registration has been granted by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies Act and their banks are functioning in a l