1. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Jotendro Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Short factual matrix of the present case is that the business activities of Banks including Co-operative Banks, proprietary of their existence and non-existence are subject matters of close regulations by the Reserve Bank of India. Till the year 1965, Co-operative Banks were not regulated by the Reserve Bank. In the year 1965, the Parliament felt it necessary to be within the purview of B.R. Act, 1949, a large number of Co-operative Societies carrying on banking business to prevent the emergence of weak Urban Banks and also to ensure the growth of Co-operative Banking on some lines. Therefore B.R. Act was amended w.e.f. 1.3.1966 by the Central Act No. 23 of 1965 by inserting, inter alia, Part-V providing for the applications of B.R. Act 1949 to Co-operative Banks. In terms of section 22 of the Act, no Co-operative Societies can carry on banking business in India, unless, it holds a License in its behalf by the Reserve Bank of India. 3. The present petitioner, Shri Akham Biradhwaja Singh, is the Chief Promoter of the proposed “Manipur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Achanbigei, Imphal East District, Manipur” and said proposed Bank, it is said, by following guidelines, norms, regulations and other related provisions contained in Licensing Policy of the Reserve Bank of India, and Manipur Cooperative Societies Act 1976 has been endeavoring to get necessary License for the purpose of banking business from the Reserve Bank of India and also for registration under the Manipur Co-operative Societies Act 1976 as “Registered Cooperative Bank”. 4. The petitioner, it is said, stated that as many as 3(three) writ petitions, i.e. C.R. No. 415 of 1998, W.P(C) No. 986 of 2000 and W.P(C) No. 254 of 2002, had been filed before this court for the same subject matter of the present writ petition. In the last writ petition, i.e. W.P(C) No. 254 of 2002, it is said that this court had passed an order dated 5.8.2003 to the effect that “submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India is that Reserve Bank of India is the only approving authority after consideration of the recommendations of the Govt.of Manipur. In the last writ petition, i.e. W.P(C) No. 254 of 2002, it is said that this court had passed an order dated 5.8.2003 to the effect that “submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Reserve Bank of India is that Reserve Bank of India is the only approving authority after consideration of the recommendations of the Govt.of Manipur. On the other hand, submissions of the learned G.A., Manipur is that as there are some legal defects for which recommendation cannot be made, and if, petitioner complied with all the legal formalities, the government may consider the matter again. Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent government to re-consider the matter provided within 30 to 45 days from to-day the petitioner makes fresh representation detailing all facts requiring for consideration of the Government for recommendation. Petition is disposed of.” Thereafter, it is said that a contempt petition being Content case © No. 207 of 2003 was filed as the proforma respondent No. 2, i.e. the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Manipur, Govt. of Manipur did not implement the directions of this court in the judgment and order dated 5.8.2003 passed in W.P(C) No. 254 of 2002. It is stated that the contempt petition, i.e. Contempt Case (C) No. 207 of 2003 had been closed under the order of this court dated 23.1.2004 in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that process has been initiated in pursuance of the said order passed by this court to implement the same. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that even if the proposed Bank, i.e. the Manipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Achanbigei, ImphalEast District, Manipur had complied with all the requirements under the Licensing Policy and procedures and revision of Licensing Policy of the new Urban Co-operative Bank of the Reserve Bank of India, the respondents 1,2,3 and 4 have not issued the necessary approval for issuing necessary license for running banking business in favour of the proposed Bank . But arbitrarily, the respondent No. 3., i.e., the Dy. But arbitrarily, the respondent No. 3., i.e., the Dy. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank Department, Guwahati wrote a letter dated 29.6.2004 to the petitioner stating that “Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Manipur had forwarded your proposal vide their letter No. B-Coop/13/01/98- 99(Case) dated 27.2.2004 for organization of Manipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. In this connection, as advised the Reserve Bank of India has taken a policy decision not to consider any proposal or organization of new Bank, conversion of Cooperative Credit Societies into UCB until further announcement is made by Reserve Bank of India in this regard.” It is also said that the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Urban Banks Deptt., Mumbai also wrote a letter dated 12.6.2004 to the Registrars of Co-operative Societies, All States and Union Territories that the Reserve Bank of India has announced its annual policy statements for the year 2004-05 that in order to make the UCB sector strong, healthy and suitable, it is proposed to consider issuance fresh License only after a comprehensive policy on UCBs including an appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks for the sector, is put in place and a policy for improving the financial health of the urban cooperative banking sector is formulated early.” In accordance with the above announcement, no fresh proposal or organization of new UCBs or for conversion of Co-operative Credit Societies into UCBs will be considered till the situation is reviewed and a fresh announcement is made by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard. Therefore, nothing to forward in such proposal for consideration. This instruction came into force with immediate effect. In this writ petition, the petitioner is asking for quashing the said letter of the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India dated 12.6.2004 and also the said letter of the Dy. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank Deptt., dated 29.6.2004. The respondents had filed their affidavit-inopposition. This instruction came into force with immediate effect. In this writ petition, the petitioner is asking for quashing the said letter of the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India dated 12.6.2004 and also the said letter of the Dy. General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank Deptt., dated 29.6.2004. The respondents had filed their affidavit-inopposition. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 3, it is clearly mentioned that the proposal for organization of new Urban Co-operative Bank in the name and style of “Manipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Achanbigei, Imphal East District, Manipur” was deficient in certain information and documents and as such the Chief Promoter of the proposed Bank, i.e. the present petitioner, was directly advised on March 31, 2004 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) by the Reserve Bank of India, Urban Bank Department, Guwahati to furnish the required information/documents. Under the said letter of the Reserve Bank of India dated 31.3.2004, the petitioner had been advised to furnish the following information and documents directly to the Reserve Bank of India for considering his proposal: (a) A revised Project report containing up-to-date data based on the agenda notes of the latest (64th/65th) State Level Bankers' Committee Meeting for Manipur particularly in respect of the items III, IV(ii) and IV(III) of the project report; (b) Bye-law provision [cf. clause 32(b)] of your proposed bank should be duly certified by the RCS, Manipur; (c) Bio-data of the Promoters in the prescribed format (copy enclosed). (d) A certificate from your banker evidencing that your proposed bank has already kept with it a sum of Rs.85.00 lakhs collected towards its share capital, and (e) Copies of Income-Tax Assessment orders of the Promoters, if they are Income Tax Assesses. If not, a declaration to the effect should be submitted to us duly signed by each Promoter. 6. It is a case of the respondents 1 to 4 that the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirements for necessary approval for issuing License for running banking business by the Reserve Bank of India. Further, the respondents had categorically stated that the Reserve Bank of India had taken a policy decision not to consider any proposal for re-organization of new Banks/conversion of Co-operative Credit Societies into UCB until further announcement is made by the Reserve Bank of India in that regard. 7. Further, the respondents had categorically stated that the Reserve Bank of India had taken a policy decision not to consider any proposal for re-organization of new Banks/conversion of Co-operative Credit Societies into UCB until further announcement is made by the Reserve Bank of India in that regard. 7. From the above facts, it appears that there is a serious disputed questions of fact as to whether or not the proposed Bank, i.e. “Manipur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Achanbigei, Imphal East District, Manipur” has fulfilled all the requirements under the said Licensing Policy of the UCBs of the Reserve Bank of India for necessary approval for issuing License for running banking business. We may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. - Vrs - Delhi Municipal Corpn, & Ors, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 160 that where the basic facts are disputed, and complicated questions of fact depending on evidence are involved, the writ court is not the proper forum for seeking relief. The right course for the High Court to follow was to dismiss the writ petition on this preliminary ground, without entering upon the merits of the case. In the absence of firm and adequate factual foundation, it was hazardous to embark upon a determination of the points involved. The writ petitioner may, if so advised, seek their remedy on a regular suit. The Apex Court also reiterated in mohammad Ibrahim - vrs - City Magistrate Varanasi, reported in (1983) 2SCC 153 that questions regarding rights to property and religious practice can be decided only by suit not in a writ petiton. Again, the Apex court in State of M.P. & Ors - Vrs - M.V. Vyavsaya &Co reported in (1997) 1 SCC 156 held that no one should be allowed to suffer “for act of Court” and if the disputed question of facts are involved, in a writ petition, such writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold. The Apex Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) And Ors.- Sukamani Das (SMT) & Anr., reported in (1999) 7 SCC 298 , held that where the disputed questions of facts involved, the matter ought not to be entertained under Article 226.” 8. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., - Vrs - Mohd. We also gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., - Vrs - Mohd. Ismail & Ors.,reported in (1991) 3 SCC 239 that the Court cannot dictate the decision of the Statutory Authority that ought to be made in exercise of discretion in a given case. The Court cannot direct the Statutory Authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law . The Apex Court in Subhash Photographics & Ors. - Vrs - Union of India & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 323 held that the Court would not interfere with the wisdom to government policy. 9. Keeping in view of the above laws laid down by the Apex Court, this court is of the considered view that in the present factual context of the present writ petition, the petitioner has utterly failed to make out a case for interfering with the policy decision of the Reserve Bank of India mentioned in their said letter dated 29.6.2004 that the Reserve Bank of India has taken a policy decision not to consider any proposal for organization of new Bank, conversion of Co-operative Credit Societies into UCB until further announcement is made by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard. This writ petition has no merit. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.