Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 518 (CAL)

Habibar Rahaman v. State of West Bengal

1993-12-21

Altamas Kabir

body1993
Judgment Altamas Kabir, J. 1. This is an application for review of the order passed by this Court on 16th February, 1993, vacating the interim order initially passed on 12th February, 1993, and directing hearing of the writ application. 2. The main ground on which the petitioners have sought a review of the order of 16th February, 1993, is that because of a bona fide mistake, reference had not been made to the proviso to sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, when the matter was argued on 16th February, 1993. According to the petitioners, had the said provision been brought to the notice of the Court on 16th February, 1993, this Court would not have vacated the interim order. 3. The said proviso provides that no steps should be taken by the State Government for dissolution of the Board of Directors of a State Co-operative Bank or the Central Co-operative Land Development Bank or any Central Co-operative Bank or such other Co-operative Bank as comes within the provision of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, without prior consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. 4. Appearing in support of the review application, Mr. J. Islam submitted that since the Directors of the North 24 Parganas Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. had been dissolved without prior consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, as provided for in the proviso to Sub-so (2) of s. 30 of the aforesaid Act, such decision and order of the State Government was bad and was liable to be quashed. Mr. Islam submitted that because of a bona fide error, the aforesaid proviso, which has a material bearing on the facts of the case, was not brought to the Court's notice, as a result of which the interim order passed on 12th February, 1993, was vacated. 5. Opposing the review application on behalf of the State, Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee firstly submitted that the review application was not maintainable since new facts had been sought to be incorporated without amendment of the pleadings in the writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that the scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged on review and the review application would have to be confined to the original pleadings. Mr. Milan Bhattacharjee firstly submitted that the review application was not maintainable since new facts had been sought to be incorporated without amendment of the pleadings in the writ petition. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that the scope of the writ petition could not be enlarged on review and the review application would have to be confined to the original pleadings. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that the writ petitioners were really seeking a re-hearing of the matter in the garb of a review application, since the review application did not satisfy the principles embodied in Order XLVII of Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that this was not a case involving discovery of new materials not within the knowledge of the petitioners when the earlier order was passed, nor was there any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review of the earlier order passed on 16th February, 1993. 7. Referring to the merits of the review application, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that the Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1940, made provision for Co-operative Land Mortgage Banks which were subsequently redesignated as Co-operative Land Development Banks under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. Mr. Bhattacharjee urged that such redesignation was also incorporated in the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 8. In this connection, Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to sub-so (12) of s. 2 of the 1983 Act wherein Co-operative Land Development Banks have been defined to mean a co-operative society, the objects of which include the creation of funds for lending money to its members on long-term basis for improvement of agricultural land and for other productive purposes. 9. Mr. Bhattacharjee urged that subsequently all land development have again been redesignated as Agricultural and Rural Development Banks. 10. Referring to the proviso to sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the 1983 Act, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that Primary Land Development Banks now Agricultural and Rural Development Banks) do not come within its ambit and hence the question of prior consultation with the Reserve Bank of India did not arise in this case. 11. Amplifying his submissions, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that land development banks did not come within the purview of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Mr. 11. Amplifying his submissions, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that land development banks did not come within the purview of Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that land development banks did not engage in regular business of banking, as defined in clause (b) of S. 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and its activities were confined to extending loans to its members. Mr. Bhattacharjee urged that land development banks did not submit returns to the Reserve Bank of India and its activities were under the supervision and control of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NBARD). 12:. Mr. Bhattacharjee made specific reference to the provisions of s. 3(b) and s. 56(c)(z) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which excludes the operation of the said Act in respect of co-operative land mortgage banks, which were re-designated as land development banks and were again re-designated as Agricultural and Rural Development Banks. 13. Mr. Bhattacharjee urged that the review application was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed as the proviso to sub-so (2) of s. 30 of the 1983 Act did not apply to the facts of this case. 14. Replying to the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, Mr. Islam re-iterated his submission that the proviso in question applied to the petitioners' bank as well, since the Bank was engaged in full-fledged banking business and its activities were not confined to extending loan to its members. 15. It may be mentioned that during the course of the hearing, leave was granted to the petitioners to bring on record certain documents in support of his contention that the petitioners Bank was engaged in regular banking business in terms of various Circulars issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, particularly the Circulars dated 26th February, 1992, and 22nd April, 1992, being Annexuers "X" and "Y" to the second Supplementary Affidavit affirmed on behalf of the petitioners on 13th December, 1993. These Circulars were of course questioned on behalf of the State, which by its Affidavit-in-Opposition dated 2nd December, 1993, annexed other letters from the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development to show that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal, was directed to amend his Circulars to bring them in line with the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India with regard to acceptance of deposits by primary land development banks. Some of the primary land development banks which continued to accept deposits in accordance with the Circular dated 26th February, 1992, were also advised to discontinue the same. 16. Mr. Islam also referred to a pamphlet said to have been issued by the West Bengal Central Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., wherein the policies of the said Bank have been enumerated to include banking operations. 17. Mr. Islam urged that since primary land development banks were engaged in banking operations like any other normal bank, the proviso to Sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the 1983 Act was attracted to the facts of the case, and the removal of the Directors of the North 24 Pargants Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. in contravention thereof was liable to be stayed pending the hearing of the writ petition. 18. It is apparent from the submissions of Mr. Islam that the review application was made with the object of bringing into focus the proviso to Sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the West Bengal Co-operative societies Act, 1983, though the challenge in the writ petition is to Sub-so (2) itself. The two are not entirely unconnected and may well be urged in support of the petitioner's case. 19. However, having regard to the wording of the proviso to Sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the 1983 Act, it prima facie appears that primary land development banks do not come within its purview and, 011 the other hand, have specifically excluded from the operation of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, by virtue of the provisions of S. 3 and 56(c)(i) thereof. The correspondence brought on record by way of Supplementary Affidavits and reply thereto, go to show that, although, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was in favour of exploring the possibilities of expanding the activities of primary land development banks to include general banking business, such proposal was not accepted by the National Board for Agricultural and Rural Development, which, at present, supervises the activities of all primary land development banks. 20. There is also substance in Mr. Bhattacharjee's submissions that this review application does not satisfy the pre-conditions laid down in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no new materials have. 20. There is also substance in Mr. Bhattacharjee's submissions that this review application does not satisfy the pre-conditions laid down in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no new materials have. been disclosed which were not within the petitioners' knowledge, when the matter was heard on 16th February, 1993, on the question of continuance of the interim order passed on 12th February, 1993. 21. Apart from the above, one cannot disagree with Mr. Bhattacharjee's contention that the scope of the writ petition cannot be enlarged in a review application. If the petitioners wish to rely on the different documents, referred to in the supplementary affidavits, they will have to take appropriate steps in the writ application itself. 22. Having regard to the above and the prima facie view taken by me that the proviso to sub-so (2) of S. 30 of the 1983 Act would not apply to primary land development banks, this review application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but this will not prevent the writ petitioners from taking this point during the hearing or the writ petition itself and the prima facie view taken by me will be subject to the final result of the writ petition. 23. The application for review is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 24. Let xerox copies of this order be made available to the learned advocates of the respective parties. Application dismissed.