ORDER :

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for all the records on the file of the 5th Respondent in DBOD.No.Com.Bc.28/C.408(A)-81 as illegal and unconstitutional opposed to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for failing to honour the value of the cheques without any justifiable reason.

This Writ Petition has been filed to set aside the circular in DBOD.No.Com.Bc.28/C.408(A)-81 on the file of the 5th Respondent in DBOD. No.Com.Bc.28/C.408(A)-81 as illegal and unconstitutional opposed to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and direct the 1st Respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for failing to honour the value of the cheques without any justifiable reason.

2. The 2nd Petitioner was impleaded on 30.09.2022.

3.a. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the 2nd Petitioner is an account holder with 3rd Respondent in Account No.00201005546 and issued a cheque for Rs.48,000/- dated 28.07.2007 in favour of the 1st Petitioner to withdraw the amount on his behalf. The amount was required for the purpose of paying the fees and expenses for the 2nd Petitioner's son's admission. Since the 2nd Petitioner was in Bangalore and could not come down to Chennai personally on that date, he nominated the 1st Petitioner as his agent to withdraw the amount for making payment to the college. The cheque was drawn in 1st Petitioner's name. When the cheque was deposited with the 1st Respondent for withdrawing the money, he was not given the amount. It is informed that the amount below Rs.15,000/- alone would be honoured. Therefore, it is the contention of the 1st Petitioner that even the account holder cannot withdraw money for his emergency needs, if the amount is over Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, cheque was returned stating that the third party cash withdrawal limit exceeds Rs.15,000/- at non-base branch. According to the Petitioner the money is not that of the bank but of the customer. The bank is bound to return the sum as and when demanded, if available in the account. When there is no rule stipulating the upper limit for deposit of a sum, equally there could not be a ceiling for withdrawal. Not honouring the cheque despite having sufficient sum is against the performance object of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the Banking Regulation Act. The complaint made to the RBI also not taken seriously. The RBI cannot frame arbitrary rules to deny withdrawals of amounts fixing a ceiling limit. At best it can only satisfy itself as to the person who is seeking for withdrawal of the amounts and nothing more.

3.b. When the 1st Petitioner came to know that the Circular No.DBOD No.com.BC.28/c.408(A)-81 dated 23.02.1981 wherein RBI instructed that the Bank may consider fixing the suitable ceiling beyond which no cash withdrawal should ordinarily be allowed unless the account holder himself is personally present to withdraw the money. It is also stated that as far as the cash withdrawal ceiling limit for self withdrawal it was represented that they have not issued any guidelines. According to the Petitioner, 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondent fixing ceiling limit for self withdrawal cannot be permissible as no regulations were issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore the policy of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India's guidelines fixing the cash withdrawal limits unless the account holder himself is personally present is also contrary to the Banking Regulation Act, the Negotiable Instrument Act and against the public policy. Therefore, the writ petitioner is challenging the circular issued by the RBI. The artificial restrictions imposed by the 4th Respondent is contrary to the Banking Regulation Act and is unmindful of