Back
PRINTPLUS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS – Respondent
WP 200/2021
6.WP.200.2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.200 OF 2021
Printplus Pvt. Ltd.
....Petitioner
V/s
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by Mr. Makarand Bakore a/w. Mr. Dinesh Gajria for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh G. Singh a/w. Mr. Rahul Tiwari for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 (UOI).
Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/by M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. for Respondent No.4.
CORAM :
A. A. SAYED &
SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ
DATED :
30th MARCH, 2021
P.C.:
1.
The Petitioner has fled this Petition seeking the following reliefs.
“a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Operative
Guidelines of the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee Scheme, 2020 (at
Exhibit “A” herein) issued by the Government of India in so far is it
excludes Urban Co-operative Banks from its ambit, is arbitrary,
irrational and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution;
b.
That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction directing the
Respondent No.1 to include Urban Co-operative Banks within the
ambit of the Operative Guidelines of the Emergency Credit Line
Guarantee Scheme, 2020 (Exhibit “A” herein).
Aarti Palkar
1/5
6.WP.200.2021.doc
2.
The Petitioner has thus challenged the exclusion of Urban Co-
operative Banks (UCBs) from the ambit of the Emergency Credit Line
Guarantee Scheme, 2020 (ECLGS). The said Scheme is a special Scheme
launched by Government of India on 23.05.2020 to support eligible Micro,
Small & Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and business enterprises in meeting
their operational liabilities and restarting their business in the context of the
disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. According to the Petitioner,
though the Scheme includes Non Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), it
arbitrarily excludes UCBs. It is contended that the Petitioner’s fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) are infringed by such exclusion.
3.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
Counsel for the Respondents.
4.
In the Afdavit-in-Reply on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
dated 05.03.2021 and 19.03.2021, it is pointed out that the inclusion of
UCBs as Member Lending Institution (MLI) within the scope of ECLGS was
considered and deliberated at the 2nd meeting of the Management
Committee of ECLGS held on 01.06.2020. However, the Committee felt that
in view of high NPA’s amongst Cooperative Banks, some criteria might be
evolved for determining the eligibility of UCBs and other Co-operative Banks
under the Scheme. It is further pointed out that to evolve the criteria,
Aarti Palkar
2/5
6.WP.200.2021.doc
audited annual reports were sought from various Co-operative Banks.
However, audited results of FY 2019-20 have been received from only 23
cooperative banks (out of total 54 UCBs and 23 State Cooperative Banks).
Due to this it has not been found possible to evolve the criteria for
determining the eligibility of the Co-operative Bank.
5.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 has pointed out the
Annexure to the Afdavit-in-Reply dated 19.03.2021 which is titled
“Developments in Co-operative Banking”. He has produced a Chart which
is extracted from the data in the said Annexure. It is reproduced hereunder:
Urban Co-op. Bank (UCB)
NBFC
2019-2020
1. 1539 UCB’s
2. 54 = Scheduled
1485= Non-Schedul
