THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNX-W; TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2004 PASSED BY R1 VIDE ANNX-H; DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO REVIVE THE R5 BANK BY CONSIDERING THE REVIVAL PACKAGE FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE R5 BANK.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

This petition is originally by one H. M. Ramaiah, upon his demise, is substituted by one Smt. R. K. Saraswati claiming to be the erstwhile Secretary of one Cauvery Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,/respondent No.5 herein under liquidation seeking following reliefs;

i) A Writ/ Order/ Direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.03.2012 passed in Appeal No. 14(4)/2004-AC by the third respondent produced as Annexure-W.

ii) A Writ/ Order/ Direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order no, UBD.WBS.BSD(IV)LR/10-12.03.2035/2003-04 dated 02/02/2004 passed by the first respondent produced as Annexure-H.

iii) Direct the respondents 1 & 2 to revive the 5th respondent bank by considering the revival package filed by the petitioner on behalf of the 5th respondent bank.

iv. Pass such other order/s deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the proceedings throughout."

Brief facts of the case are;

(a) that the respondent No.5/bank was established in the year 1998, by the original petitioner H. M. Ramaiah as its Chief promoter. He had obtained the banking license from respondent Nos.1 and 2/Reserve Bank of India and had thus on compliance of the requirement of law had started the banking business. The respondent No.5/Bank was constituted primarily for the benefit of members of SC/ST community. The license thus granted was an exceptional one. It was permitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI to raise Rs.20,00,000/- as share capital amongst the members. It has 2,042 members, of which 51% are belonging to SC/ST community.

(b). The Respondent No.5/bank was subjected to inspection by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI during the month of October, 2000 and had raised certain queries related to the procedures adopted in functioning of the banking business, which was suitably replied by the petitioner and other members of the respondent No.5/Bank. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI had not communicated anything further enabling the petitioner or to the respondent No.5/bank to provide any information regarding its satisfactory functioning.

(c) That after a gap of one year after the first inspection, respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI had again inspected respondent No.5/bank between February and March, 2002 and had again raised certain defects and deficiencies in its performance. A report dated 15.04.2002 was furnished which was duly replied. Though respondent No.5/bank had achieved profits for the first year of its performance and had also rectified the defects which were pointed out, yet the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI did not consider any of the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI inspected the respondent No.5/bank for the third time again, pointing out the procedural lapses. The same was rectified in terms of the conditions stipulated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI.

(d) That on 24.06.2002 as per Annexure-J a direction was issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/RBI under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, calling upon the respondent No.5/bank to submit to the Deputy General Manager, Urban Bank Department, Reserve Bank of India, such statements relating to its operations as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India in this behalf. Though the notice calling upon the respondent No.5/bank to show cause was apparently issued, even before any response could be issued, the Registrar, Department of Co- operative Societies passed an order on 05.08.2003 as per Annexure-E in purported exercise of his powers under Section 30(