The court reinforced the principle that ongoing proceedings in a higher court impede the adjudication of similar matters in lower courts, upholding jurisdictional boundaries concerning administrative actions.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in this writ petition are non-resident Indians. Each of them had with them currency notes demonetised by the Government of India of value not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. As they were not in India during the period during which they should have claimed the value of said currency notes, they were later permitted to claim the value of the demonetised currency notes till 30.06.2017 from the designated offices of the Reserve Bank of India at Delhi, Mumbai, Calcutta, Nagpur and Chennai. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the value of the demonetised currencies in their possession being less than Rs.25,000/-, it is not practical to go to the designated offices of the Reserve Bank which are situated far off from the State of Kerala. Petitioners, therefore, seek orders directing the Reserve Bank of India to make alternative arrangements to enable them to claim the value of the demonetised currencies in their possession.

2. At the time of admission, this court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to surrender the demonetised currencies in their possession before the Ernakulam office of the Reserve Bank of India, and directing the Ernakulam office of the Reserve Bank of India to keep the same subject to further orders. The petitioners have accordingly surrendered the demonetised currency notes at the Ernakulam office of the Reserve Bank of India and the same are retained in that office.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Senior Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India pointed out that the Apex court has interdicted entertainment of writ petitions of this nature, in terms of the order passed on

16.12.2016 in W.P.(C) No.906 of 2016 and connected cases.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, pointed out that the order of the Apex Court referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India is the order in terms of which the Apex Court has made a reference of a few questions relating to the demonetisation of the currency notes made by the Government of India to a Larger Bench and the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition does not fall within the scope of the questions formulated by the Apex court in the said batch of cases for decision by the Larger Bench.

5. It is seen that the case made out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the decision of the Reserve Bank of India in confining the facility extended to non- resident Indians to claim the value of demonetised currency notes to five designated offices far off from the State is discriminatory and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution. The questions formulated by the Apex Court for decision by the Larger Bench in terms of the order dated 16.12.2016 read thus:

2.1(i) Whether the Notification dated 8.11.2016 is ultra vires Section 26 (2) and Sections 7, 17, 23, 24, 29 and 42 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ?;

2.2(ii) Does the Notification contravene the provisions of Article

300A of the Constitution?;

2.3(iii) Assuming that the Notification has been validly issued under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 , whether it is ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution?;

2.4(iv) Whether the limit on withdrawal of cash from the funds deposited in bank accounts has no basis in law and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21?;

2.5(v) Whether the implementation of the impugned notification(s) suffers from procedural and/or substantive unreasonableness and thereby violates Articles 14 and 19 and, if so, to what effect?;

2.6(vi) In the event that Section 26 (2) is held to permit demonetisation, does it suffer from excessive delegation of legislative power thereby rendering it ultra vires the Constitution?;

2.7(vii) What is the scope of judicial review in matters relating to fiscal and economic policy of the Government?;

2.8(viii) Whether a petition by a political party on the issues raised is maintainable under Article 32?; and

2.9(ix) Whether District Cooperativ