Judgement BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. :- This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful writ-petitioners and is directed against order dated September 23, 2004 passed by a learned single Judge by which his Lordship disposed of a writ-application by holding that the Banking Ombusdsman exceeded its jurisdiction in making observation on the merit of the claim of the writ-petitioners when it rejected the complaint on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 2. 2. The appellants before us filed a writ-application against the respondents by which they claimed the following relief : "a) A Writ of or on the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent No. 1 to forthwith review and/or rescind and/or withdraw and/or cancel the order dated April 25, 2003 and/or in any event, the observations contained therein relating to the merits of the claim of the petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No. 2; b) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent that the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines relating to rates of interest chargeable by memberrs of consortium of banks are adhered to and followed by the respondent No.2; c) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondent No. 2 to forthwith review and/or rescind and/or revoke and/or cancel its claim against the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of interest rates higher than the rate applicable to the relevant consortium of banks; d) A Writ of or in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondent No.1 from giving any effect or further effect to the order dated April 25, 2003 at least in so far as the observations contained therein relating to the merits of the claim of the petitioner against the respondent No. 2; e) A Writ of or in the nature of Prohibition do issue restraining the respondent No. 2 from claiming or realising in any manner any sum from the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of interest at any rate higher than the rate applicable to the consortium of banks which granted credit foculities to the petitioner No. 1 and of which the respondent No. 1 and of which the respondent No. 2 was a member; f) A Writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding the respondent No. 1 to forthwith transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records of the instant case culminating in the order dated April 25, 2003 and the observations on merits of the claim of the petitioner No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 as contained therein, so that the same may be quashed and conscionable justice be done; g) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari do issue commanding the respondent No. 2 to forthhwith transmit to this Hon'ble Court the records relating to the instant case and culminating in refusal on the part of the respodnent No. 2 to limit its claim against the petitioner No. 1 on account of interest to the rate applicable to the consortium of banks that provided credit facilities to the petitioner No. 1 and of which the respondent No. 2 was a member, so that the same may be quashed and conscionable justice be done; h) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above; i) Injunction restraining the respondent No. 2 from in any manner seeking to claim or realise any money from the petitioner No. 1 on the basis of any interest rate in excess of the interest rate as stipulated in the agreement dated May 15, 1989; j) Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above; k) Costs of and incidental to this applicable be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3; l) Such further order or orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper." 3. The case made out by the appellants may be summed up thus : (a) The appellant No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and was engaged in the manufacture and sale of sulphuric acid, oleums, insoluble sulphur etc. The appellant No. 1 is a constituent of the respondent No. 2 and had been obtaining credit facilities from the respondent No. 2 from the year 1987. Such credit facilities were obtaind pursuant to the agreement entered into by and between the appellant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2. (b) The credit facilities from the respondent No. 2 was a part of the consortium-borrowings from a consortium of banks of which Bank of Baroda, India Exchange Place, Calcutta, the respondent No. 4 was the lead bank. The interest charged by the Bank of Baroda, the respondent No. 4, in respect of the credit facilities made available by the Bank of Baroda to the appellant No. 1 under the consortium agreement was 16.5 per cent. At the relevant point of time, the consortium agreement was entered into by and between the appellant and the consortium of banks including the respondent No. 2 on May 15, 1989. According to the Reverve Bank of India circular, the effect of such agreement was that from various credit facilities under the consortium, the rate of interest would be uniform as decided by the consortium. (c) The interest rate applicable in respect of any consortium-advance is based on the interest rate charged by the lead bank. Accordingly, in pursuance of the circulars framed by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant No. 1 was liable to pay interest to each of the memers of the bank of the said consortium at the rate fixed by the consortium and/or at the rate payable by the appellant No. 1 to the lead bank. Accordingly, in pursuance of the circulars framed by the Reserve Bank of India, the appellant No. 1 was liable to pay interest to each of the memers of the bank of the said consortium at the rate fixed by the consortium and/or at the rate payable by the appellant No. 1 to the lead bank. (d) The respondent No. 2 had made a demand of interest from the appellant No. 1 at a rate higher than the rate specified in the agreement and at a rate higher than that charged by the Bank of Baroda from the appellant No. 1 and in such circumstances, the appellants made various representations to the respondent No. 2 to accept interest at the rate provided for under the agreement dated May 15, 1989 notwithstanding any other previous agreement or arrangement, the appellant No. 1 might have had with the respodnent No. 2. (e) By a letter dated February 9, 1994, the appellants were duly informed the respondent No. 2 that the interest charged by the respondent No. 2 from the appellant was substantially in excess of the rate as charged by the lead bank of the consortium, namely, the Bank of Baroda and it was in excess of the uniform rate by more than 4.2 per cent. (f) On the basis of the excess rate of interest arbitrarily levied by the respondent No. 2, the account of the appellant No. 1 had been debited by a sum in excess of Rs. 16.99 lakh between the period June, 1992 and December, 1993 and by the letter dated February 9, 1994, the appellants duly called upon the respondent No. 2 to adjust the additional interest charged by it to enable the appellants to pay off its balance dues. By subsequent letters dated July 4, 1994, November 21, 1994, December 20, 1996, May 5, 1997, August 21, 1997, June 18, 1998, June 20, 2000, August 7, 2000, August 8, 2000, August 12, 2000 and further letters up to April 1, 2002 the appellants demanded refund of interest and proper calculation of the outstanding dues. (g) The respondent no. 2 represented to the appellants that the matter would be submitted to the higher authorities for consideration. (g) The respondent no. 2 represented to the appellants that the matter would be submitted to the higher authorities for consideration. The various representations mentioned above were finally decided by the respondent No. 2 by a letter dated December 4, 2001 and by such letter, the respondent No. 2 reiterated its earlier decision and rejected the claim of refund of interest by the appellants. (h) In accordance with the provision of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, the appellants filed acomplaint on April 8, 2002 against the decision of the respondent No. 2 contained in the letter dated December 4, 2001. (i) Ultimately, the respondent No. 1 turned down the claim of the appellants on the grounds that Clause 13(3)(a) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2002 required lodging of complaint within a year from its demand being rejected by the bank and that the claim of the appellants was in excess of Rs. 10 lakh. 4. The application was contested by the respodnent No. 2 by filing affidavit-in-opposition thereby denying the allegations made in the writ-application and the defence of the respondent No. 2 may be precised thus: (1) By a deed of hypothecation dated May 15, 1989 between the writ-petitioner No. 1 and the consortium, it was agreed that each of the members of the consortium including the respondent No. 2 should be entitled to charge interest at the agreed rate. (2) The writ-petitioner No. 1 throughout the material period agreed to pay and actually paid interest including penal interest at the agreed rate and from time to time admitted and acknowledged in writing the principal and the interest due to the respodnent No. 2 in the acocunts maintained by it with the respondent No. 2. (3) The account of the petitiner No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 was closed and on March 11, 2003, a sum of Rs. 17, 845-87p. was due and payable to the petitioner No. 1 in the said account. On the said date, the respodnent No. 2 paid the said sum to the petitioner No. 1 and on the closure of the accounts, released the securities held by it. (4) The alleged claim of the appellants for refund of interest was not maintainable and could not be gone into in the writ-application as the same was barred by limitation. 5. (4) The alleged claim of the appellants for refund of interest was not maintainable and could not be gone into in the writ-application as the same was barred by limitation. 5. The learned single Judge as indicated above disposed of the writ-application by passing the following order : "It appears that the order so passed by the Banking Ombusdsman, Calcutta for the refund of excess interest as claimed by the petitioner was rejected although the said Banking Ombusdsman has specifically stated that he has no jurisdiction in the matter since this claim exceeds Rs. 10 lacs. The Banking Ombudsman has a right to proceed in the matter and jurisdiction has been fixed by the statute to the extent only not otherwise. It appears that by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner asking for refund of excess interest as already realized by the bank from the account of the petitioner. The said Ombudsman has also specifically stated that the claim of compensation the limit of Rs. 10 lacs. Therefore, in my opinion, the Ombudsman has exceeded his jurisdiction to grant such compensation as claimed by the petitioner since it has no right even to go into the matter and accordingly it has to be held that such order is a nullity and in excess of its jurisdiction with such observation as has been made in the said order. Hence, the said order is set aside with a right to the parties to proceed with the matter before the appropriate forum, if so advised. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of this case since any observation is made by the Court that may affect the right of the parties before such forum. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking." 6. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with the present mandamus-appeal. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants did not challenge the finding of the learned single Judge on the question whether the banking ombusdsman had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the claim exceeded Rs. 10 lakh. Being dissatisfied, the writ-petitioners have come up with the present mandamus-appeal. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants did not challenge the finding of the learned single Judge on the question whether the banking ombusdsman had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the claim exceeded Rs. 10 lakh. He, however, submitted that in the writ-application the appellant not only prayed for setting aside the order passed by the banking ombusdsman, the respondent No. 1, but also prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents that the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines relating to the rate of interest chargeable by the members of the consortium of banks should be adhered to and followed by the Respondent No. 2 and accordingly, prayed for prohibition restraining the respondent No. 2 from claiming or realising any sum from the appellant No. 1 on the basis of interest at any rate higher than the rate applicable to the consortium of banks which granted the credit facility to the appellant No. 1. In other words. Mr. Chatterjee submitted that a direction should be given to the respondent No. 2 to refund the interest taken from his clients by the respondent No. 2 in excess of the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. 8. Mr. Bachawat, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2/bank has, however, opposed the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the appellants and has contended that in the case before us, the amount of interest for the disputed period were actually paid to his client and such payment was acknowledged by the appellants in the year 1994. According to Mr. Bachawat, in such circumstances, the writ-application filed in the year 2003 was not maintainable as on that date the appellants had no existing legal right to enforce the alleged claim even if we assume for the sake of argument that the amount was realised by the Bank in violation of Reserve Bank of India's guidelines. Mr. Bachawat, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present mandamus-appeal. 9. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this mandamus-appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to claim the relief by way of refund of excess amount of interest alleged to have been recovered by the respondent No. 2 from the appellants. 10. Mr. Bachawat, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present mandamus-appeal. 9. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this mandamus-appeal is whether the appellants were entitled to claim the relief by way of refund of excess amount of interest alleged to have been recovered by the respondent No. 2 from the appellants. 10. There is no dispute that the appellant No. 1 took credit facilities from the respondent No. 2/bank and for that reason, an account was opened. It further appears that from time to time, the rates of interest were fixed by agreement. For the period in question, the appellants actually paid the agreed interest and such amount was acknowledged by the respondent No. 2/bank but subsequently, the appellants demanded refund of the alleged excess amount or adjustment of the same. It appears from the record that such demand was explicitly turned down by the respondent No. 2 long ago in the year 1994 and in spite of such refusal, the appellant No. 1 went on making representations and ultimately, the respondent No. 2/bank having reiterated its earlier stand, the writ-application was filed in the year 2003. In the writ-application, the writ-petitioner mainly challenged the order of the banking ombudsman. Although other prayers were there in the writ-application, it does not appear from the order impugned that those prayers were pressed before the learned single Judge. His Lordship merely obseved that the banking ombudsman had no jurisdiction to observe anything on merit as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in the facts of the present case. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the partis and after going trough the materials on record, we are, however, of the view that the appellants are not entitled to maintain the writ-application claiming refund of the alleged excess amount already paid to the Bank. We have already pointed out that in the year 1994, the respodnent-bank specifically refused the claim of refund or adjustment. The period of limitation for claiming refund of such amount is three years when such claim was refused. It is now settled law that by making mere representations, the barred claim is not revived. We have already pointed out that in the year 1994, the respodnent-bank specifically refused the claim of refund or adjustment. The period of limitation for claiming refund of such amount is three years when such claim was refused. It is now settled law that by making mere representations, the barred claim is not revived. In order to maintain a writ-application, the writ-petitioner must prove that on the date of presentation of the writ-application it had an existing legal right which had been infringed by the action or inaction of a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the year 2003, when the writ-application was filed, the writ-petitioners' claim, even if any, was barred by limitation and as such, they had no existing legal right to enforce. We, therefore, find substance in the contention of Mr. Bachawat that the writ-application claiming refund of the alleged excess interest already paid was not maintainable as the same was in essence a money-claim which was already barred by law of limitation. 12. Apart from the previously mentioned fact, we find that the respondent No. 2 realised an agreed rate of interest. If the agreed rate of interest is in excess of the Reserve Bank Circular, for that reason the Reserve Bank of India can take appropriate step against the Bank but in this writ-application filed by the appellants, they cannot pray for refund of interest allegedly taken by the Bank. It is not the case of the appellants that they ever made any representation before the Reserve Bank of India for taking any action against the respondent No. 2 but the Reserve Bank of India has not taken any action. We have already pointed out that the appellants did not raise any other points than the one reflected in the order of the learned single Judge as regards the observation of the respondent No. 1 on merit of the claim in the order dated April 25, 2003 nor is it the case of the appellants that in spite of raising such points, the learned single Judge did not deal with those points. 13. We, therefore, find that the appellants are not entitled to any of the relief claimed in the writ-application and the present mandamus-appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 15. 13. We, therefore, find that the appellants are not entitled to any of the relief claimed in the writ-application and the present mandamus-appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs. 15. RUDRENDRA NATH BANERJEE, J. :- I agree. Appeal dismissed.