Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. These three writ petitions in the nature of public interest litigations raise a common question with regard to the legality of acquisition of business of the State Bank of Travancore by State Bank of India. The petitioners contend that the acquisition is not in accordance with law. The respondent State of Kerala support the petitioners. State Bank of India and erstwhile State Bank of Travancore opposed the writ petition. In one of the writ petitions, two individuals have been made respondents who are none else than two of the several Directors of the State Bank of Travancore. These two have virtually supported the writ petitioners.

2. We have heard the parties at length. We must note that initially these writ petitions were to be taken up for urgent interim orders. But with consent of the parties, we heard the parties at length for final disposal of the writ petitions itself, at this stage.

3. To begin with, we would note that we are not involving ourselves in emotional issues which are apparently quite high and significant. A court is concerned only with legal issues leading to legality of the transaction or illegality therein.

4. The first contention has been raised by Sri.Thampan Thomas, the learned counsel, leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28770 of 2016, who submits that State Bank of Travancore was created by an Act of Parliament, viz. State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959. That being so, the banking business of the State Bank of Travancore could not be taken over and/or acquired by State Bank of India. It is only Parliament that could have sanctioned the same.

5. We have noted the argument only for the purpose of rejecting the same, for a reading of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, shows that this Act was not an Act creating a Bank under Parliamentary control, but was an Act which governs taking over of existing business of existing banks by the State. It was virtually Bank Nationalisation Act. In the process, Travancore Bank Ltd., which was an existing Bank, was taken over and State Bank of Travancore was created as a subsidiary of State Bank of India which itself was created under the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Thus seen, it is wrong to suggest or submit that State Bank of Travancore, as created under the 1959 Act, was a Bank created by the Parliament and was under the control of Parliament and it is only Parliament that could sanction its merger or its acquisition by State Bank of India.

6. The other reason for holding so is Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, clearly envisages and authorises the State Bank of India to acquire business of any other Banks subject to the conditions laid down therein which inter alia is a pre-acquisition negotiation with the sanction of the Central Government and, if so required, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. These are the major controls provided by the legislature itself. We have on record the fact that there was consultation amongst the two Banks. Pursuant to consultation, reports were drawn up and reports were placed before Board of Directors of both the Banks. The scheme was approved and the same was placed before the Central Government. The Central Government being satisfied, sanctioned the scheme. Thus, the legal formalities were complete. There being no infraction, therefore, this Court is unable to interfere in the matter.

7. The next contention on behalf of the petitioners was in relation to Section 36AE of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short, "the Act"). The submission is that the power has not been exercised either by the Central Government or by the Reserve Bank of India in accordance with the provisions of Section 36AE of the Act. For ready reference, we quote the relevant provision herein below:

"36AE. Power of Central Government to acquire undertakings of banking companies in certain cases