COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to close the mortgage loan in SLB 147, SLB 152, SLB, 162, MSL 21 & MSL 26 and consequently to return all the original documents based on the representation dated 14.08.2017.

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents in the present Writ Petition is the Multi Cooperative Society, therefore, the Writ Petition will not lie against the respondents. He further submitted that in the case of S.P.Ganesan vs. The Authorised Officer, REPCO Bank, reported in 2021 5 CTC 517, the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court held that the respondents herein is not a Government Organisation.

4.The order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court referred to above is extracted hereunder:

"The short question that falls for consideration in this matter is whether the REPCO Bank is authorised to invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. The writ petitioner has obtained credit facilities from the respondent REPCO Bank. Upon the perceived failure on the part of the writ petitioner to repay the dues within time, a notice has been issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 on April 20, 2017. A further notice has been issued under Section 13(12) of the Act of 2002 on November 15, 2019 for taking possession of the secured assets. Since a possession notice has been issued, it is evident that the respondent has purported to take steps under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. In an ordinary situation where the respondent may be regarded as a secured creditor within the meaning of that expression used in the Act of 2002, the writ petitioner in the present case would have had an opportunity to approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002.

3. The writ petitioner, however, contends that the respondent is not a bank at all and, thus, cannot be regarded as a secured creditor within the meaning of the relevant expression in the Act of 2002. The writ petitioner asserts that all steps taken by the respondent under the Act of 2002 are void and completely without jurisdiction.

4. For the purpose of obtaining the views of the Reserve Bank of India, a notice was issued to such central bank. According to the Reserve Bank, the respondent is not a bank within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is further submitted on behalf of the Reserve Bank that it has not issued any banking license to REPCO Bank.

5. Indeed, the writ petitioner has relied on an affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank in W.P.No.9623 of 2019 in this Court. At paragraph 12 of such affidavit, the Reserve Bank categorically indicated that “the Repatriates Cooperative Finance and Development Bank Limited (REPCO BANK), which was originally registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 as a co-operative society, is deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 as a multi-state cooperative society, but has not been issued a banking licence by the RBI and does not come under the regulatory purview of Reserve Bank of India.” Elsewhere in the relevant affidavit, the Reserve Bank stated that the respondent was under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and was regulated by the Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Reserve Bank also referred to an order of March 26, 2014 by which the Central Registrar instructed all multi-state co- operative societies to discontinue accepting deposits from nominal members “as this is construed as acceptance of deposits from public and carrying out banking activities.”

6. Though limited participation of the Reserve Bank was invited by this Court, such central bank has indicated the position wit