JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.THAKER 1. It emerges from the averments made by the petitioner and the diverse relief/s prayed for, that upon being perturbed and feeling aggrieved by the functioning and the state-of-affairs of the respondent No.3-General Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No.3 Bank”), the petitioner had represented before the respondent No.1-Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “RBI”) to take action against the respondent No.3 Bank and since, in the petitioner”s opinion, any action to safe-guard the interests of the respondent No.3 Bank and its shareholders, members and the depositors were not being taken by the RBI, the petitioner preferred present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought directions against RBI requiring it to take actions against the respondent No.3, a Co-operative Bank. 1.1 It also comes out from the petition that in light of RBI's Inspection Report (at Annexure-A) and on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 12.09.1989 urging RBI to take action thereon, present petition came to be filed on 19.02.1990 against the inaction on the part of respondent No.1 ”RBI” and Union of India in the Ministry of Finance praying, inter alia, that action/s be taken by RBI against the respondent No.3 bank and against the responsible Director(s) and Officer(s) of respondent No.3 bank for number of irregularities and illegalities committed in the respondent No.3 bank at the instance of its Director (respondent No.4) as well as other officers/persons. 2. This petition was initially placed before a learned Single Judge who issued notice to the respondents. After the affidavit in rejoinder was filed, the learned Single Judge (P.K.Sarkar, J.) in the order dated 11.04.2000 observed that as per the petitioner's assertions the petition was also filed as a public interest litigation. Hence, the learned Single Judge by the said order dated 11.04.2000 referred the matter to the Division Bench taking up Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, after the said order dtd. 11/04/2000 the petition has been considered by the Division Bench. It deserves to be mentioned at this stage that the above referred order dated 11.04.2000 (considering the petition also as PIL) was not challenged by any respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2008 and by an administrative order dated 24.11.2008 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before this Court. 3. It deserves to be mentioned at this stage that the above referred order dated 11.04.2000 (considering the petition also as PIL) was not challenged by any respondent. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2008 and by an administrative order dated 24.11.2008 of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before this Court. 3. The broad picture emerges as under:- 3.1 As far back as in September, 1989, the petitioner, a shareholder and member of the respondent No.3-Bank and also a Chartered Accountant by profession, alleged that the responsible officers, including certain director(s), of the respondent No.3 Bank were indulging in serious irregularities in the affairs of respondent No.3- Bank which were detrimental to the interests of depositors, shareholders and the Bank. The cited instances included grant of loans on large scale ( i.e. to the tune of few crores) without following procedure and without asking for sufficient or any securities, to various firms/persons including the kith and kin of the top brass of respondent No.3 Bank. 3.2 The petitioner voiced his grievance that though empowered by virtue of provisions under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Act”) and also by virtue of the provisions under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (“the 1934 Act” for short) to take strict actions, the respondent No.1-RBI was, with regard to the respondent No.3 Bank, ignoring to take any action and thereby its duties and functions. In such factual background and with such grievance the petitioner approached this Court seeking directions as prayed for in the petition. The petitioner has stated that he is actively interested in public interest and social welfare activities. The petitioner has asserted below mentioned facts as the facts leading to filing of this petition. He has stated that :- (a) On account of improper and illegal/irregular disbursement of loans by respondent No.3 bank at the instance of the Directors of respondent No.3 bank in favour of Companies or persons in / with whom the Directors had direct or indirect interest and the respondent no.3 Bank's failure to recover such loans and other general mismanagement, the respondent No.3 bank had been placed into precarious position. (b) The RBI had carried out inspection under Section 35 of the 1949 Act and that on such inspection, RBI itself had found large number of irregularities committed by respondent No.3 bank, in particular by respondent No.4 for his personal benefits. A copy of the report was also produced at Annexure A to the petition. (c) The respondent No.4 - HK Shah, during which period the illegalities and irregularities were committed, was the Managing Director of respondent No.3 bank and had obtained unfair and illegal advantage for himself or his relatives etc. through various companies in which he had interest. In number of cases, loans were disbursed without proper applications, without securities whatsoever and without following the proper procedure. (d) In the audit report for the year 1987-88, it was stated by the auditor that balance sheet of respondent No.3 did not represent true position and that profit and loss account did not show the correct profit; that for the year 1988-89 the report of internal auditor - Mr NC Patel was critical and incorrect; that the bank had not got its account audited for the year 1988-89 as required under the law and despite such irregularities, the respondent No.3 was seeking to declare maximum possible dividend for its shareholders which was neither possible in the interest of the bank nor permissible under the law. (e) Even after the grave irregularities and illegalities committed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 came to the knowledge of RBI, RBI failed and neglected to take any action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in connection with such irregularities and illegalities despite his letter dated 12.9.1989 requesting RBI to take action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and RBI failed in its statutory duty cast on it under the 1949 Act and the Reserve Bank of India Act. In his said letter dtd. 12/09/1989 after mentioning, the illegalities and irregularities in the respondent no.3-Bank, the petitioner had, inter alia, requested that :- (a) Reserve Bank of India should direct the said Bank forthwith to remove the persons from the Board of Directors and to appoint some other person or persons in their places to function as Board of Directors of the said Bank until the said bank elects its new Directors under its bye laws. (b) To take appropriate actions, including criminal action, if necessary, against the persons concerned from amongst the members of the Board of Directors of the said Bank or any other person or persons responsible for the irregularities and illegalities committed, as aforesaid; (c) To recover all advances made in favour of the near relatives of Shri H.K. Shah, one of the Directors of the said bank forthwith; (d) To direct the said Bank to recover forthwith all the advances made by the said bank to various parties without proper securities in respect thereof; (e) To prevent the said Bank from placing the said unaudited report before the Annual General Meeting to be held on 19th Sept., 1989 for its approval and further preventing the Bank from declaring any dividend without proper audit report for the year ending on 30.06.1989. 3.3 The petitioner has claimed that since inspite of RBI's own report and even after his aforesaid communication dated 12.9.1989, any action was not taken by RBI, he filed present petition in 1990 praying, inter alia, that :- “(A) direct the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate action under Section 35(A) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1934, as applicable to the Banking Cooperative Societies, against the respondent No.3 - General Cooperative Bank Limited; (B) direct the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India to take appropriate measures to set at right the illegalities and irregularities noticed by the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India in its report Annexure-A; (C) direct the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India to compel the respondent No.3 ? General Cooperative Bank Limited to recover forthwith all the advances made by the said respondent to various parties without proper securities in respect thereof; (D) direct the respondent No.1 - Reserve Bank of India to take steps to recover forthwith all the advances made in favour of persons and companies in which the respondent No.4 herein has interest;” 3.4 Then, pursuant to the issuance of notice and subsequent orders, the respondents entered appearance and opposed the petition. In course of the process of completing the pleadings, various affidavits, rejoinders and sur-rejoinders have been filed by both the sides. In course of the process of completing the pleadings, various affidavits, rejoinders and sur-rejoinders have been filed by both the sides. 3.5 In response to the notice issued by this Court, an affidavit in reply dated 17.4.1990 was filed by Mr D.C. Jain, Joint Chief Officer of RBI at Ahmedabad, opposing admission of the petition and grant of any interim relief. It was contended that the petitioner did not have locus standi to file the petition. The RBI further contended that the petitioner had unauthorizedly obtained the inspection report and the correspondence exchanged between RBI and the respondent No.3 bank. RBI also submitted that it is entitled to claim privilege for the inspection report. RBI acknowledged receipt of the petitioners' letter dated 12.9.1989. 3.6 Thereafter, affidavit in reply dated 1.8.2000 came to be filed by Mr. Dilip C Shah, Manager of respondent No.3 Bank submitting that the petition was filed to ventilate the petitioner's personal grievances and to settle the petitioner's score against the management and the persons managing the affairs of the bank and that the petitioner had not approached the Court bonafide and with clean hands. It was further submitted that though the petition was tried as public interest litigation, the same was moved “only with a view to have personal benefits with a private motive and out of political consideration.” 3.7 Before proceeding further it is pertinent to note that during pendency of the petition, respondent No.3-Bank has been closed down in January, 2002. By an order dated 2/6/2003, Official Liquidator came to be appointed. In light of the said development, the petitioner has urged that what he apprehended, became a reality. 3.8 The respondent No. 1 RBI also filed a “note of action” dated 15.1.2004. The facts stated in the said “note of action” thereafter came to be incorporated in the further affidavit dated 17.3.2008 of V.G. Venkata Chalapathy which was followed by another affidavit dated 20.03.2009 file by Shri Harchand Ram on behalf of RBI. In the affidavit dated 17.03.2008 it was stated:- “8. The RBI conducted statutory inspections of the General Co-op. Bank Ltd., the respondent No.3 from time to time with respect to its financial position as on 29.12.1990, 30.9.1992, 31.3.1995, 30.6.1997, 30.9.1999, 30.9.2000, 30.6.2001 and 30.9.2002. 9. Reserve Bank conveyed the inspection reports to the bank and Registrar of Co-op. In the affidavit dated 17.03.2008 it was stated:- “8. The RBI conducted statutory inspections of the General Co-op. Bank Ltd., the respondent No.3 from time to time with respect to its financial position as on 29.12.1990, 30.9.1992, 31.3.1995, 30.6.1997, 30.9.1999, 30.9.2000, 30.6.2001 and 30.9.2002. 9. Reserve Bank conveyed the inspection reports to the bank and Registrar of Co-op. Societies/ State Government for necessary compliance with the inspection report and to take corrective steps. Compliance reports were examined by the Reserve Bank. The co-operative bank was given time to rectify the irregularities and to take concrete corrective steps. 10. The Reserve Bank exercised off-site supervisory control by calling statutory reports from the bank under Section 27 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as applicable to co-operative societies from time to time and advised the co-operative bank to take necessary corrective action. 11. The statutory inspection conducted by the Reserve Bank under Section 35 of the B R Act with respect to the financial position as on 30th September 1999, revealed several disquieting features in the functioning of the bank. The bank's over dues was at Rs.3069.78 lakh of its loans and advances. The bank was categorized as 'weak' in February 2000 and was required to prepare concrete plan for its revival and for coming out of its weak position and was also required to furnish quarterly report to regional office. 12. xxxxxx xxx 13. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 35 A read with Section 56 of the B.R. Act, the Reserve Bank in public interest and in the interest of the depositors, to prevent the preferential payment and for preservation of the assets issued directive on 1st January 2002 imposing restriction on the co-operative bank directing the General Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad as from the close of business on 1st January 2002 shall not without prior approval in writing from the Reserve Bank of India accept fresh term deposits excepting saving bank and current deposits incur fresh liability including borrowal of funds, grant of fresh advances, disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise or enter into any compromise or arrangement and sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except to the extent and in the manner provided therein. 14. xxxxxx xxx 15. On 7.2.2003, the Registrar Co-op. 14. xxxxxx xxx 15. On 7.2.2003, the Registrar Co-op. Societies, Gandhinagar requested for permission of the Reserve Bank for liquidation of the Co-op Bank Ltd. Further on 10th April 2003, the Registrar Co-op. Societies, Gandhinagar reiterated its request to take the co-operative bank under liquidation. 16. In view of these disquieting features, the Reserve Bank was satisfied in public interest that the General Co-op. Bank Ltd. was unable to pay its debts and required the Registrar Co-operative Societies to wind up the General Co-op. Bank vide requisition dated May 27, 2003 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 2(gg) read with Section 13D of DICGC Act, 1961 read with Section 115A of Gujarat Coop. Societies Act, to the Registrar of Co-op. Societies. 17. ..................... an order dated 3.1.2002 bearing No. UBD DSD. III/3418/12.03.0329/ 2001-02 was passed ........................ whereby administrator was appointed for the Bank in supersession of the board of directors thereof. ........ 18. .................the Registrar Co-op. Societies, Gandhinagar passed an order of winding up of the General Co-op. Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad on 2.6.2003 and appointed a liquidator to wind up the bank. ............. 19. Meanwhile, the depositor's Association of the cooperative bank had filed several applications in the High Court seeking cancellation of the bail of the erstwhile Chairman etc. The High Court passed order on December 20, 2003 directing the cooperative bank to start making payment to the small depositors who have deposited funds upto Rs.10,000/-. 20. The RBI filed Criminal Misc. Application No.8449 of 2002, CRMA No.4841 of 2002 and CRMA No.1649 of 2002 recalling the order dated 20.12.2002 passed by the Gujarat High Court. The said application was rejected by the High Court of Gujarat on 7.2.2003. 21. The Reserve Bank filed Criminal SLP No.2174 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant leave to appeal to the Reserve Bank of India and order of the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court was stayed. 22. The Reserve Bank has also filed appeal against the order dated December 20, 2002 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. 23. The Reserve Bank has taken all necessary action in the interest of depositors and to protect the interest of the depositors. 3.9 It also deserves to be noted that the Official Liquidator filed affidavit dated 16.1.2009. 22. The Reserve Bank has also filed appeal against the order dated December 20, 2002 passed by this Hon'ble High Court. 23. The Reserve Bank has taken all necessary action in the interest of depositors and to protect the interest of the depositors. 3.9 It also deserves to be noted that the Official Liquidator filed affidavit dated 16.1.2009. It is stated in the said affidavit as under :- “(3) I submit that as soon as the Bank received the directions from the Honourable Court, the staff of the Bank in liquidation verified the accounts and on verification of the accounts, it appeared that in almost all the accounts, the Bank has received the outstanding dues of the borrowers/debtors and accordingly the accounts were closed. The detail of the said accounts in a tabular form is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/3 and Annexure R/4 respectively. (4) Considering the above facts and circumstances of the matter, as per the record of the bank in liquidation, I submit that nothing would survive as per the allegations and grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The Bank in liquidation has initiated all necessary steps for recovery of its dues from its borrowers and has taken all further necessary steps for recovery of the dues as expeditiously as possible within the four corners of law.” 3.10 The petitioner filed his rejoinder dated 26.03.2009 to the above affidavits quoting various paragraphs from the note of action/ affidavits of RBI and submitted that had RBI taken timely and effective measures, the respondent No.3 bank would have survived and the loss of crores of rupees of thousands of small investors and public could have been avoided/saved. 3.11 On behalf of RBI, affidavit in sur rejoinder dated 16.4.2009 came to be filed (in response to petitioner's rejoinder dated 26.3.2009) by A. Rajalakshmi, Deputy General Manager, RBI at Ahmedabad, stating, inter alia, that :- “1. 3.11 On behalf of RBI, affidavit in sur rejoinder dated 16.4.2009 came to be filed (in response to petitioner's rejoinder dated 26.3.2009) by A. Rajalakshmi, Deputy General Manager, RBI at Ahmedabad, stating, inter alia, that :- “1. I have read the copy served upon the RBI's advocate of the petitioner's rejoinder in the captioned Special Civil Application (for short 'the Petition'), which thereafter came for hearing for the first time on 02.04.2009, when at the outset on behalf of RBI it was pointed out that the petition was not maintainable and had become infructuous, that the petitioner's rejoinder contains fresh factual allegations and seeks to expand the scope of the petition and should not be taken on record......... On behalf of RBI it was submitted that if the petition was considered as maintainable and not become infructuous on merits, and was to be heard, RBI be granted time to reply to the petitioner's rejoinder. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to take the petitioner's rejoinder on record and to give to RBI time till 1.04.2009 to file its sur-rejoinder.” 3.12 Affidavit dated 10.8.2009 has also been filed by respondent No.4 “ Mr. HK Shah stating that 12 cases were filed in the Board of Nominees, wherein respondent No.4 was joined as Ex-Chairman and Ex-Managing Director of the bank and a total sum of Rs.18.35 crores were deposited in the 12 cases. 4. In backdrop of such facts and pleadings, rival submissions have been made. 4.1 We have heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Anushree Kapadia for the petitioner, Mr. SB Vakil, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. HV Chhatrapati for respondent No.1 ? RBI, Mr. AJ Patel for respondent No.4, Mrs. VS Pathak, learned AGP for the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for respondent No.6 ? Official Liquidator for respondent No.3 bank. 4.2 Mr. Joshi, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that this is the classic case of system failure coupled with inaction or mechanical execution of part of duties without having concern for or regard to the necessary follow up action. He also submitted that present case is personification of the consequences which arise and are generated in the system which lacks accountability. He submitted that in routine manner inspection reports are filed, however, there is no appraisal procedure and/or requirement of compliance report. He also submitted that present case is personification of the consequences which arise and are generated in the system which lacks accountability. He submitted that in routine manner inspection reports are filed, however, there is no appraisal procedure and/or requirement of compliance report. He submitted that the inspection reports are said to have taken note of the loans being granted without following procedure and without securities resulting into siphoning of crores of rupees, however, in view of absence of any appraisal procedure or requirement for compliance report and total lack of accountability, no actions were taken, despite statutory duty. So as to substantiate his submissions and the relief prayed by the petitioner, Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel relied upon the provisions under sections 8, 9, 14(A), 18, 20(A), 24, 27, 29, 31, 35, 35(A), 36 and 46 of the Banking Regulations Act. 4.3 Relying on AIR 2003 Kerala 299, it has been submitted that RBI has power under the Banking Regulation Act to issue directions regarding the function to individual banks under section 35(A) and such powers are coupled with duty to exercise the same in public interest. He relied on (2002) 1 SCC 367 to support his submissions. He also submitted that petition praying for mandamus would lie to seek exercise of conferred power coupled with duty and to support this submission he relied on AIR 1952 SC 16 . Relying on The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, new Delhi & Anr. V/s. K.S.Jagannathan & Anr. [ AIR 1987 SC 537 ] he urged that in fact Court can not only issue mandamus but can also pass order which the authority ought to have passed. 4.4 Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel referred to and relied upon para-4 to 8 of the petition to counter the RBI’s contention that any specific averments to justify the relief (s) being prayed for are not made by the petitioner. He submitted that specific averments are found in the memo of petition and also the communication dated 12.09.1989 which being annexure to the petition, is part of the petition. Relying on (1979) 4 SCC 176 , (1974) 4 SCC 710 and AIR 1974 SC 130 , Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel submitted that RBI being statutory body and instrumentality of State is not expected to raise technical objections in attempt to defeat the petition for just claim and public cause. Relying on (1979) 4 SCC 176 , (1974) 4 SCC 710 and AIR 1974 SC 130 , Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel submitted that RBI being statutory body and instrumentality of State is not expected to raise technical objections in attempt to defeat the petition for just claim and public cause. Mr.Joshi, learned senior counsel also submitted, in light of (2004) 11 SCC 1 that Public Interest Litigation raising issues affecting the working of RBI would be maintainable and such litigation is a recognized tool for redressal of issues relating to discharge of functions related to public by the State or statutory bodies and the concept of locus standi does not inhibit PIL. It is submitted that though the large scale irregularities and illegalities in the functioning of respondent No.3-Bank were noticed and when the petition raising voice against such inaction is preferred, it is being opposed on technical pleas and such irregularities are being wished away by RBI as mere technical irregularities. It is submitted that in view of such facts the petitioner prays for appropriate directions notwithstanding the technical contention that upon closure of the respondent no.3 Bank and pursuant to the appointment of Official Liquidator after winding up order, the petition has become infructuous and nothing remains to be done. Mr Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, further, submitted as under :- (i) The petition raises the issue of inaction of RBI in taking prompt and adequate measures inter-alia under section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to prevent the affairs of the bank being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or to secure the proper management of the bank. (ii) The petition also raises the issue regarding efficacy of the inspections undertaken by RBI of the bank, monitoring of the adequacy and genuineness of the compliance by the bank of the irregularities pointed out in the reports of inspection and assessment of the need to take follow up action if the irregularities persist. (iii) The petition raises the issue regarding assessment of the financial status of a bank by the RBI in order to determine the need and point of time for intervention and the enforcement and compliance of various Circulars issued by the RBI in relation to the working of urban cooperative banks. (iii) The petition raises the issue regarding assessment of the financial status of a bank by the RBI in order to determine the need and point of time for intervention and the enforcement and compliance of various Circulars issued by the RBI in relation to the working of urban cooperative banks. (iv) It is precisely because of the very irregularities that had been unveiled in the inspection report from 1989-90 onwards regarding siphoning-off of the funds by the directors of the bank, which remained unattended to by the RBI, that the bank ultimately went into liquidation. This is evident from the affidavit of RBI (p.199 para 8 to 14). Therefore, what was an apprehension of the petitioner at the time of filing the petition, has turned into a reality at the time of hearing and far from rendering the petition infructuous, the event lends support to the petition and mandates an adjudication of the issues raised therein. (v) Even otherwise the issue regarding the functioning of urban cooperative banks and the role of RBI In relation thereto is likely to arise frequently and therefore also it is necessary to adjudicate upon the issues raised in the petition. ( 2008 (1) SCC 770 ) (vi) It is submitted that appropriate directions are necessary to avoid recurrence of such events. 5. Mr S.B. Vakil, learned Senior Counsel for RBI has vehemently raised objections against the petition on the ground of its maintainability and its survival value as well as petitioner's locus and submitted that the petition had become infructuous as none of the reliefs prayed for could now be granted because the respondent No.3 bank was already taken into liquidation and the question of issuing directions under Section 35A of the Act would not arise against such a bank and that the Official Liquidator as well as the administrator have also been appointed. Several authorities have been cited in support of the contention that infructuous petition should not be entertained and that the Court should not go beyond the pleadings and should not decide new issues which were not arising from the pleadings. 5.1 Mr. Vakil for RBI also submitted that the petitioner is not a proper person to whom a writ of court in the PIL could be entrusted. 5.2 Mr. 5.1 Mr. Vakil for RBI also submitted that the petitioner is not a proper person to whom a writ of court in the PIL could be entrusted. 5.2 Mr. Vakil, senior counsel for respondent No.1 Bank has submitted, inter alia, that the captioned petition is not maintainable and that nothing is required to be done so far as the relief prayed for by the petitioner, are concerned. He relied on (1972) 3 SCC 234 , (2004) 12 SCC 73 and AIR 1971 SC 2451 as well as (1999) SCC (L&S) 645. It is also submitted that though the petition had, in any case, become infructuous the petitioner was raising contentions only as afterthought so as to expand the scope of the petition. It is also claimed that any petition affecting the working of RBI is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on (2004) 11 SCC 1 , (2004) 4 SCC 460 and AIR 2004 SC 280 . Mr.Vakil, senior counsel further submitted that the relief(s) prayed for in the petition are too vague to be entertained and for being granted. It is submitted that a prayer for direction that the respondent shall act in accordance with law is mischievous and such prayer cannot be entertained. He relied on (1987) 1 GLH 493 @ 495, (1995) 1 SCC 391 : AIR 1995 SC 1847 , (1998) 7 SCC 469 : AIR 1998 SC 3104 . The respondent No.1 has also contended that the relief for direction against RBI to compel the respondent No.3 Bank to recover the advances are not competent as such actions are not part of RBI’s statutory duty and that therefore such relief cannot be granted and mandamus cannot be issued. It is also claimed that the party praying for mandamus must also have right to enforce performance, however, present petition lacks in both. Reliance is placed on (2007) 9 SCC 461 : AIR 2007 SC 1771 , (2008) 2 SCC 280: AIR 2008 SC 1339 , (2009) 5 SCC 339 and AIR 1971 SC 33 . Mr.Vakil, learned senior counsel relied on about seven judgments to advance the contention that only matters in issue can be decided and relief not prayed for cannot be granted. Mr.Vakil, learned senior counsel relied upon (2004) 4 SCC 748 , (2006) 6 SCC 36 , (2006) 12 SCC 215 and (2007) 13 SCC 2007. Mr.Vakil, learned senior counsel relied on about seven judgments to advance the contention that only matters in issue can be decided and relief not prayed for cannot be granted. Mr.Vakil, learned senior counsel relied upon (2004) 4 SCC 748 , (2006) 6 SCC 36 , (2006) 12 SCC 215 and (2007) 13 SCC 2007. Mr.Vakil, learned senior counsel also submitted, while relying on (1996) 4 SCC 391 , that reliance on published books and articles which are not supported by relevant data cannot form basis of the decisions of the Court. On (1997) 1 SCC 875 he relied to submit that in absence of specific plea it is not justified for the High Court to enter into roaming inquiry. Mr. Vakil submitted that the petition deserved to be dismissed without any orders. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents including the preliminary objections raised on behalf of RBI and also the authorities cited at the bar. 6.1 (a) Mr. Vakil, Learned Sr. Counsel for RBI has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Pramod Malhotra Vs. Union of India, (2004) 3 SCC 415 (particularly on para 25) where the RBI was called upon to pay damages for having permitted a private bank to open a branch. When the bank was not given such permission for opening the branch elsewhere, the Apex Court held that it was in that context that the observations that the bank has to balance general public interest with the interest and need of banks and financial institutions and that they cannot easily close down a bank merely because there are few irregularities, in para 25 were made. Since the grievance that there was inaction on the part of RBI in not taking appropriate action against respondent No.3 bank and its Directors was being made by the petitioner right from 1990, at least the notice issued on the petition should have made RBI take a serious note of the illegalities and irregularities of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which ultimately led to siphoning off of crores of rupees. Actually, in the cited case, the RBI had taken steps under Section 36AA of prohibiting the Managing Director from acting as such whereas in present case despite specific request to such effect in respect of Mr.H.K.Shah, the RBI did not take any action under Section 36AA or 36AB. Actually, in the cited case, the RBI had taken steps under Section 36AA of prohibiting the Managing Director from acting as such whereas in present case despite specific request to such effect in respect of Mr.H.K.Shah, the RBI did not take any action under Section 36AA or 36AB. Thus, in our view the said judgment does not help the RBI in present case. 6.1 (b) In our view, the reliance placed on (2008) 2 SCC 280 is not justified inasmuch as in the said case the Apex Court, having noticed that the respondent was not able to show that there was any statute or rule having force of law which cast any duty on the appellant bank to declare respondent’s account as NPA from 31.3.2000, observed that writ of mandamus may be issued only if there is a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authority. In the case of Pramod Malhotra (supra) the Apex Court has observed that RBI performs statutory function. Further, in present case, the petitioner has prayed that RBI may exercise its statutory powers and remove the responsible officer and compel the respondent No.3 bank to recover the advances made. Such request was being made by the petitioner as a shareholder and member of the respondent No.3 bank and on the premise that such power is conferred by the 1949 Act. Thus, the facts of present case differ from the facts in case of Oriental Banks of Commerce and therefore, this judgment also, does not help the respondent RBI. Likewise, the judgment in case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthana [ (2007) 9 SCC 461 ] also would not help the respondent RBI in opposing the petition, in view of different set of facts involved in present case, particularly since the petitioner, in present case, sought that the RBI should exercise its statutory powers to check and control the irregularities and illegalities being perpetrated in respondent No.3 bank, which is a statutory function and duty of RBI. 6.1 (c) Mr. Vakil, Learned Sr. Counsel has also relied on 1995 (1) SCC 391 and contended that the Court should not issue general, sweeping and vague directions which are not capable of being implemented and specific directions may be issued only after ascertaining correctness of the allegations. 6.1 (c) Mr. Vakil, Learned Sr. Counsel has also relied on 1995 (1) SCC 391 and contended that the Court should not issue general, sweeping and vague directions which are not capable of being implemented and specific directions may be issued only after ascertaining correctness of the allegations. The respondent RBI has hastened to rely on the said judgment on assumption that vague or general or sweeping directions will be issued. In our view the prayer for relief for direction to RBI by asking it to discharge its duty by taking action against Respondent No.3 bank to protect the interests of depositors can not be equated with prayer for relief of not acting otherwise in accordance with law, hence the said judgment and/or judgment in the case between State of Gujarat and Mangal Traders, Jamnagar (1987) 1 GLH 493 on the facts of present case, do not assist RBI’s submissions. 1 (d) Reliance on the judgment in the case of Sheonath Singh V/s. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta AIR 1977 SC 2451] is, in facts of present case, misplaced inasmuch as in the said case the Apex Court noticed that there was no material on which any belief could be founded and nothing had been disclosed which was relevant for the purpose of finding out whether the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that the income tax had escaped assessment. In present case, the very inspection reports of RBI itself acknowledge the fact about several serious irregularities in respondent No.3 bank and the said facts have been narrated in affidavits of RBI. Thus, this is not a case where one is acting or proceeding merely on suspicion or gossip or rumors. 1(e) Mr. Vakil relied on [ (2004) 4 SCC 748 ] to support the submission that infructuous petition should be dismissed and merits should not be gone into. However, in present case it appears from the material on record that the claim made in the OL's affidavits (particularly its annexure R/3) about recovery of entire outstanding of all advances does not seem to be accurate and actually all amounts due to Bank, mainly interest component, do not appear to have been fully paid and the petition contains prayer that RBI should take steps to ensure recovery of all accounts. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the petition can be said to have become wholly infructuous. 6.1 (f) Likewise, the judgment in case of Ashokkumar Jain (2004) 12 SCC 73 also would not help RBI since in the said case also the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that once a view is taken that petitioner under Article 226 is not maintainable it is not necessary to deal with the other issues on merits whereas in present case, we have not taken such a view. 6.1 (g) So far as the judgment in case of Hasmattullah V/s. State of M.P. and Others [ (1994) 4 SCC 391 ] is concerned, while clarifying that the material against which such vehement objection has been raised by RBI (e.g. Madhavrao Committee's report, Joint Parliamentary Committee's report RBI's Circulars ) have not been relied on or taken into account by us and therefore reliance on the said decision is misplaced, it needs to be mentioned that in present case the material placed by petitioner is not some book by an author, but they are the reports based on study carried out or undertaken by Joint Parliamentary Committee or by Mr.Madhavrao Committee and RBI's circulars. From the objections raised by RBI, it seems that RBI probably feels shy of, and does not want the Court to even have a look at, the observations and comments made by the Committees after studying the system and the operations. 6.2 An objection has been raised that the petitioner is not a proper person to whom the writ of the court, in a PIL, could be entrusted. In this context, it is submitted that the petitioner had taken out suit/Lavad proceedings and then abandoned the same. In this backdrop it is claimed that such action of the petitioner demonstrates that he is taking out litigation without valid reason. Now, from the facts and record, it emerges that reference to the said Lavad Case No. 3265 of 1988 appears to have been made by borrowing it from the affidavit of the respondent No.3 bank which was in the dock and which was frantically trying to find out some ground to non-suit the petitioner who had filed above-numbered Lavad (Arbitration) Case No.3265 of 1988 for permanent injunction to restrain the Chairman of respondent No.3 from conducting the annual general meeting of the bank on 30.12.1988. As regards withdrawal of the Lavad proceedings Mr Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the relief of stay order as prayed for was not granted in the interim injunction application in the said suit, the petitioner had withdrawn the suit after the date of the meeting. In our view, this does not furnish any defence to RBI and considering the facts and nature of this petition, we are not inclined to oust the petitioner or reject the petition on this ground. 6.3 It deserves to be mentioned that some of the illegalities and irregularities alleged by the petitioner in his letter dated 12.9.1989 and subsequently in the petition were noticed by RBI also in their inspection report and have also been mentioned in the “note of action” dated 15.1.2004. (a) In one of its earlier reports (Annexure-A to the petition) the RBI has noted that, “During the course of the recent inspection under Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (A.A.C.S.) of your bank carried out during the period from 21.9.87 to 24.10.87 with reference to its financial position as on 30.6.87, certain irregularities were observed in credit facilities, sanctioned to the firms in which Shri H.K.Shah, the then Managing Director and presently a Director was interested directly or indirectly. (b) The officer of RBI also remarked in the report that, “As may be observed from the foregoing, serious irregularities were committed in grant of loans and advances to firms in which Shri H.K.Shah, the then Managing Director and presently a Director was directly or indirectly interested. Your bank should take steps, as above, early with a view to regularising the matter. Please furnish us with a compliance report within one month from the date of receipt of the letter.” (c) In its affidavit dated 17.3.2008, the RBI has, in terms, acknowledged that :-“14. The statutory inspection conducted by the Bank with respect to its financial position as on 30.9.2002 revealed several irregularities. The financial position of the General Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad revealed that the real and exchangeable value of assets of Rs.4,318.30 lakh was not adequate to meet the outside liabilities of Rs.12,998.76 lakh. The bank was not complying with the provisions of section 11(1) and section 22(3)(a) and (b) of the B R Act (AACS). The realizable value of paid up capital and reserves as on 31.3.2002 was assessed (-) Rs.8,680.46 lakh. The bank was not complying with the provisions of section 11(1) and section 22(3)(a) and (b) of the B R Act (AACS). The realizable value of paid up capital and reserves as on 31.3.2002 was assessed (-) Rs.8,680.46 lakh. The bank's deposits as on 31.3.2002 were eroded to the extent of 71.9%. The Chairman and its few officers had siphoned of more than 2/3 of the loan amounting to Rs.103.61 crore themselves and their friends and employees to the tune of Rs.35.40 crore. Three other groups also appropriated the bank's funds - CN Shah Group Rs.49.57 crore, Malhotra Group Rs.15.28 crore and Atmaram Group Rs.3.36 crore.” (emphasis supplied) (d) When the base or the cause of the grievance made by the petitioner in his letter dated 12.9.1989 and in the petition against the respondent No.3-Bank and the irregularities in the conduct and affairs of respondent No.3 bank are also referred to in the RBI's “note of action” or in the inspection report or in the affidavit(s) filed on behalf of RBI itself, then the objections by RBI against the maintainability of petition and the objection that the pleadings are not in accordance with rules and also the objection against the submission of the copies of joint parliamentary committee's report and other expert committee's report on the record of the petition by the petitioner, sound like a cry out of desperation and, besides being untenable, they seem to be coming out of lack of any tangible material in support of its defence. 6.4 As regards the contention that there is no specific prayer or demand and/or that the prayers are too vague, in our opinion the earlier mentioned letter dated 12.9.1989 of the petitioner, makes it clear that the petitioner had made demand to RBI for taking action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the said letter is part of the petition and the prayers in the petition do not exclude those prayers since it also demands action under section 35(A) which encompasses action to secure proper management and to prevent any injury to depositors' interests. Hence, we do not find substance in this contention. 6.4 (a) In this connection we find substance in the submissions of Mr. Hence, we do not find substance in this contention. 6.4 (a) In this connection we find substance in the submissions of Mr. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the RBI has taken adversary approach and raised technical objections to contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed without further inquiry by the Court, which is inexplicable. 6.4.(b) The extent of RBI's objection is also illustrated in the averments by RBI to the effect that “The petitioner's rejoinder affidavit has not been affirmed in accordance with law and that the affirmation clause does not mention which statements are true to the petitioner's knowledge, which are based on information and which are based on information and belief which the petitioner believes to be true.” 6.5 In view of the objection raised by the RBI with regard to the contents of the petition memo and also with regard to the pleadings in general, it is apposite to traverse some of the relevant averments made by the petitioner in the petition memo, which are, in brief, extracted and reproduced hereinbelow to illustrate this aspect. (a) The petitioner has averred that 'the position of the respondent no.3-Bank is precarious at present and interventional by the respondent no.1 and 2 is absolutely necessary in the interest of the Bank and in the interest of the shareholders and depositors of the Bank.” (b) The petitioner has also averred that “the respondent no.3-Bank has been indulging into large number of unlawful and illegal activities to favour some of its Directors since quite some time now. A large number of Companies and persons have been given loans by the respondent no.3-Bank at the instance of the Directors of the respondent no.3-Bank, who have direct or indirect interest in the said Companies or they are relatives of the persons connected with said Companies..................” (c) The petitioner has also averred that “It is shocking and surprising that large number of loans were disbursed by the respondent no.3-Bank in favour of the Companies in which the respondent no.4-Shri H.K. Shah has direct interest without any security whatsoever. .......It is evident from report at Annexure-A that the respondent no.3-Bank during the relevant time had disbursed loans directly or indirectly in favour of Shri H.K. Shah......” (d) The petitioner has also averred that “The respondent no.1-RBI has totally failed and neglected to take any action against the respondent nos.3 and 4 in connection with such blatant illegalities and irregularities. The respondent no.1-RBI has thus failed in its statutory duty cast upon by the statute................”It is, therefore, required in the interest of justice that the respondent no.1-RBI be given suitable direction to take appropriate action against the respondent nos.3 and 4 in the interest of the banking business of the cooperative societies and in the interest of its shareholder and depositors.” (e) The petitioner has also averred that “The petitioner being in knowledge of some of such illegalities and irregularities had brought the same to the notice of the respondent no.1-RBI with a hope that it would take appropriate action on coming to know of the same against the respondent nos.3 and 4. The petitioner further averred that “Inspite of the said letter dated 12.09.1989 (Annexure-B) written by the petitioner to the respondent no.1-RBI, the respondent no.1-RBI has chosen not to act though it is duty bound to do the same.......” (f) The petitioner further averred in para-11 that “The respondent no.1-RBI has illegality and unlawfully refused to act in the present situation inspite of the fact that its own report is clear on all issues....... It is, therefore, required in the interest of justice that this Court give possible direction to the respondent no.1-RBI to take effective measures against the respondent no.3 and 4 as well as prevent further mischief by the respondent nos.3 and 4.” The averments in the petition read with Annexure-B thereof, inter alia, demonstrably make out the case that the petitioner intended and requested that action against respondent No. 3 bank and its responsible Directors/Officers etc. may be taken by RBI in connection with the grievance raised and demand made by him in his letter dated 12/09/1989 and it was for realising the said demand that the petitioner preferred the petition. On reading of the petition along with its annexures and considering the averments, we are not inclined to accept the RBI's submissions about inadequacy of pleadings and/or to dismiss the petition on such ground. On reading of the petition along with its annexures and considering the averments, we are not inclined to accept the RBI's submissions about inadequacy of pleadings and/or to dismiss the petition on such ground. In this context reference needs to be made to the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay V/s. Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 (1)] the Apex Court has observed that :- “It was objected as to this that there is no specific law which compels him to exercise the discretion. Rule 250 merely vests a discretion in him but does not require him to exercise it. That is easily met by the observations of Farl Cairns L.C. in House of Lords in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 A.C. 214, observations which have our full and respectful concurrence: “there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so.” The discretion vested in the Commissioner of police under R.250 has been conferred upon him for public reasons involving the convenience, safety, morality and welfare of the public at large. An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled under S.45.” 27. “.......Observations of Farl. An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled under S.45.” 27. “.......Observations of Farl. Cairns L.C in the House of Lords in Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5.A.C. 214, observations which have “there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when called upon to do so.” 28. “.........The discretion vested in the Commissioner of Police under R.250 has been conferred upon him for public reasons involving the convenience, safety morality and welfare of the public at large. An enabling power of this kind conferred for public reasons and for the public benefit is, in our opinion, coupled with a duty to exercise it when the circumstances so demand. It is a duty which cannot be shirked or shelved nor it be evaded, performance of it can be compelled under Section 45.” 34. “.............The demand and denial which Section 46 requires are matters of substance and not of form. In our opinion, there was a substantial demand here and it is clear that there was a denial. The correspondence read as a whole contains a clear demand for justice and a denial. It is true the actual demand was not made to the Commissioner nor was the denial by him but he clearly washed his hands of the matter by his letter of 3/4-12-1947 and referred the petitioner to Government under whose orders he said he was acting. The demand made to Government and the denial by them were therefore in substance a demand made to the Commissioner and a denial by him. 35. In any event, an evasion or shelving of a demand for justice is sufficient to operate as a denial within the meaning of Section 46. The demand made to Government and the denial by them were therefore in substance a demand made to the Commissioner and a denial by him. 35. In any event, an evasion or shelving of a demand for justice is sufficient to operate as a denial within the meaning of Section 46. In England the refusal need not be in so many words. All that is necessary is to show that the party complained of has distinctly determined not to do what is demanded. (emphasis supplied) 6.6 Likewise, in our opinion the contention that the relief for direction against the RBI that it should compel the respondent no.3 to recover the advances is not competent, is not well founded. The powers of RBI are very wide, which it can exercise upon being satisfied about the need and justification for such exercise, inasmuch as the legislature has provided that once the RBI is “satisfied” that either in the public interest or in the interest of banking policy or to secure proper management it can give “such directions” as it deems fit. It is significant to note that the powers conferred on RBI by virtue of Section-35A are of wide amplitude which is evident from the language of the Section, particularly the phrase “issue such direction as it deems fit”. Further, by virtue of provision contained under Sub-section-3 of Section-20 (as applicable to a Co-operative Bank by virtue of provision under Clause-(1) of Section-56 of part-V of 1949 Act), the RBI can, if on examination it appears to RBI that any loans or advances were granted to the detriment of the interest of depositors, by order in writing prohibit the co-operative Bank from granting any further loans and by like order it may direct the co-operative bank to secure the repayment of such loans within time specified in the order. Thus, the contention that it is not part of RBI's statutory duty to require the co-operative bank (i.e. the respondent no.3 bank in present case), to recover the advances, and therefore any direction to such effect cannot be issued, is unsustainable and such submission ignores the provisions under the 1949 Act, particularly Sub-section-3 of Section-20 as applicable in case of co-operative banks, by virtue of Section-56 of the 1949 Act. In the judgment in the case of Central Bank of India V/s. Ravindra & Others [ (2002) 1 SCC 367 ] the Apex Court has observed that:- “The power conferred by Sections 21 and 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is coupled with duty to act. The Reserve bank of India is the prime banking institution of the country entrusted with a supervisory role over banking and conferred with the authority of issuing binding directions, having statutory force, in the interest of the public in general and preventing banking affairs from deterioration and prejudice as also to secure the proper management of any banking company generally. The Reserve Bank of India is one of the watchdogs of finance and economy of the nation. It is, and it ought to be, aware of all relevant factors, including credit conditions as prevailing, which would invite its policy decisions. (emphasis supplied) 6.7 In view of the RBI’s contention that any statutory duty is not cast on it to take action and compel recovery of advances made by a bank and/or to check and control the irregularities and illegalities in the day-to-day functioning of a bank and prayer for such relief is not competent, it is necessary at this stage to take into account certain provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Act:- “56. Act to apply to co-operative societies subject to modifications.- The provisions of this Act, as in force for the time being, shall apply to, or in relation to, co-operative societies as they apply to, or in relation to banking companies subject to the following modifications, namely:- (a) throughout this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (I) references to a “banking company” or “the company” or “such company” shall be construed as references to a co-operative bank; (ii) references to “commencement of this Act” shall be construed as references to commencement of the Banking Laws (Applicable to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965 (23 of 1965); This Sections makes applicable all provisions of the 1949 Act applicable to Banking Companies, to Co-operative Banks (of course with such modifications wherever prescribed) also. 35A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions.- (1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that 1. in the [public interest]; or [(aa) in the interest of banking policy; or] 2. 35A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions.- (1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that 1. in the [public interest]; or [(aa) in the interest of banking policy; or] 2. to prevent the affairs of any banking company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the banking company; or 3. to secure the proper management of any banking company generally, it is necessary to issue directions to banking companies generally or to any banking company in particular, it may, from time to time, issue such directions as it deems fit, and the banking companies or the banking company, as the case may be, shall be bound to comply with such directions. (2) xxxxxx This Section confers power to prevent affairs being conducted in detrimental manner and to secure proper management and for that purpose to issue directions as deemed fit. 36. Further powers and functions of Reserve Banks.- (1) The Reserve Bank may- (a) caution or prohibit banking companies or any banking company in particular against entering into any particular transaction or class of transactions, and generally give advice to any banking company; (b) && (c) &.. (d) at any time, if it is satisfied that for the reorganisation or expansion of co-operative credit on sound lines it is necessary so to do by an order in writing and on such terms and conditions as may be specified therein,- (i) depute one or more of its officers to watch the proceedings at any meeting of the Board of directors of the co-operative bank or of any other body constituted by it and require the co-operative bank to give an opportunity to the officer so deputed to be heard at such meetings and to offer such advice on such matters as the officer may consider necessary or proper for the reorganisation and expansion of co-operative credit on sound lines, and also require such officer to send a report of such proceedings to the Reserve Bank; (ii) appoint one or more of its officers to observe the manner in which the affairs of the co-operative bank or its offices or branches are being conducted and make a report thereon;” This Section, inter alia, authorises RBI to caution Banks against particular transactions and to depute its officers to observe the affairs of the Bank. 36AA. 36AA. Power of Reserve Bank to remove managerial and other persons from office.- (1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of a banking company being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or for security the proper management of any banking company it is necessary so to do, the Reserve Bank may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, remove from office, with effect from such date as may be specified in the order, [any chairman, director,] chief executive officer (by whatever name called) or other officer or employee of the banking company. (2) xxxxxx Provided that if, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank, any delay would be detrimental to the interests of the banking company or its depositors, the Reserve Bank may, at the time of giving the opportunity aforesaid or at any time thereafter, by order direct that, pending the consideration of the representation aforesaid, if any, 1*[the chairman or, as the case may be, director or chief executive officer] or other officer or employee, shall not, with effect from the date of such order-- (a) [act as such chairman ordirector] or chief executive officer or other officer or employee of the banking company; (b) in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned with, or take part in the management of, the banking company. (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) xxxxxx (6) Where an order under sub-section (1) has been made, the Reserve Bank may, by order in writing, appoint a suitable person in place of [the chairman or director] or chief executive officer or other officer or employee who has been removed from his office under that sub-section, with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. (7) Any person appointed as [chairman, director or chief executive officer] or other officer or employee under this section, shall-- (a) hold office during the pleasure of the Reserve Bank and subject thereto for a period not exceeding three years or such further periods not exceeding three years at a time as the Reserve Bank may specify; (b) xxxxxx (8) xxxxxx By virtue of this provision the RBI can even remove Chairman/Director/CEO or other officer and also appoint suitable person to act as such in place of removed officer. 36AB. 36AB. Power of Reserve Bank to appoint additional directors.- (1) If the Reserve Bank is of [opinion that in the interest of banking policy or in the public interest or] in the interests of the banking company or its depositors it is necessary so to do, it may, from time to time by order in writing, appoint, with effect from such date as may be specified in the order, one or more persons to hold office as additional directors of the banking company: (2) Anyperson appointed as additional director in pursuance of this section-- (a) shall hold office during the pleasure of the Reserve Bank and subject thereto for a period not exceeding three years or such further periods not exceeding three years at a time as the Reserve Bank may specify; (b) xxxxxx (c) xxx xxx (3) xxxxxx In view of this provision, additional directors also can be appointed by RBI. 56 Act to apply to co-operative societies subject to modifications. &&&.. 56(l) [for section 20 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely:- 20. Restrictions on loans and advances.- (1) No co-operative bank shall 1. make any loans or advances on the security of its own shares; or 2. grant unsecured loans or advances- i. to any of its directors; or ii. to firms or private companies in which any of its directors is interested as partner of managing agent or guarantor or to individuals in cases where any of its directors is a guarantor; or iii. to any company in which the chairman of the Board of directors of the co-operative bank (where the appointment of a chairman is for a fixed term) is interested as its managing agent, or where there is no managing agent, as its chairman or managing director.” This provision enables RBI to regulate or check the sanctions of loans or to restrict the bank from granting loans in certain cases. In view of the provisions of the 1949 Act read with the 1934 Act, particularly the aforesaid provisions, it is not possible to accept the RBI's contention about its lack of authority or conveniently perceived inability to take action as prayed for by the petitioner. In view of the provisions of the 1949 Act read with the 1934 Act, particularly the aforesaid provisions, it is not possible to accept the RBI's contention about its lack of authority or conveniently perceived inability to take action as prayed for by the petitioner. In this context we would refer to the judgment in the case of Central Bank of India V/s. Ravindra & Others (supra) [ (2002) 1 SCC 367 ] the Apex Court has also observed that:- “Section 35-A also empowers the Reserve Bank of India in the public interest or in the interest of banking policy or in the interests of depositors (and so on) to issue directions generally or in particular which shall be binding.? (emphasis supplied) 6.8 We are also not impressed by the contention, in present case, that the petitioner lacked the right to pray for and/or enforce performance. The petitioner has asserted that he was a member and a share-holder of the respondent no.3-Bank and the said assertion has not been denied either by the respondent no.3-Bank or by RBI. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the petition is ordered to be treated as public interest litigation (which order was never challenged by the RBI or any respondent) the petitioner being a shareholder and member of the respondent no.3-Bank, was entitled to file this petition and it cannot be said that the petitioner lacked the right to claim or enforce performance and to demand that by timely actions by RBI against respondent No.3 the interests of members, depositors, customers and shareholders may be protected. 6.9 In view of the statements and assertions made in the letter dated 12/9/1989 and in view of the relief/s prayed for in the petition the objection that the relief being prayed for by the petitioner are not “matters in issue”, is unsustainable. This becomes clear from the request made in Clause (a), (c) and (d) of letter dated 12.9.1989 and relief prayed for in Clause (C), (D) and (F) besides Clause (A) and (B), of the petition memo. It needs to be noted that the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 against alleged inaction of respondent No.3 RBI and in that context, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the court can grant appropriate relief in light of the prayer clause of the petition read with the request made in letter dtd. 12/09/1989. It needs to be noted that the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 against alleged inaction of respondent No.3 RBI and in that context, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the court can grant appropriate relief in light of the prayer clause of the petition read with the request made in letter dtd. 12/09/1989. For this purpose reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi & Another V/s. K.S.Jagnnathan & Another [ AIR 1987 SC 537 (1)] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:- “............ Under Article 226 of the Constitution, every High Court has the power to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose. In Dwarkanath v. Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, Kanpur, (1965) 3 SCR 536 , 540 : ( AIR 1966 SC 81 at P.84) this Court pointed out that Article 226 is designedly couched in a wide language in order not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, such wide language being used to enable the High Courts “to reach injustice wherever it is found and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country.” In Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa, (1976) 1 SCR 667 , 676: ( AIR 1975 SC 2226 at p.2232) this Court held that the powers of the courts in England as regards the control which the Judiciary has over the Executive indicate the minimum limit to which the courts in this country would be prepared to go in considering the validity of orders passed by the government or its officers. Even had the Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus giving the directions which it did, if circumstances of the case justified such directions, the High Court would have been entitled in law to do so for even the courts in England could have issued a writ of mandamus giving such directions. Even had the Division Bench issued a writ of mandamus giving the directions which it did, if circumstances of the case justified such directions, the High Court would have been entitled in law to do so for even the courts in England could have issued a writ of mandamus giving such directions. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.” (emphasis supplied) 6.10 The RBI has further contended that nothing would survive as per the allegations and grievance raised by the petitioner in the petition. In this context, it deserves to be mentioned that we find from the tabular statement produced at page 182 with the affidavit at Page 173 that, (i) for the loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- sanctioned / drawn in 1985, the amount paid is only Rs.5,32,000/- as if only Rs.82,000/- was the interest liability for a period of more than 15 years in case of Moulesh Textile and similar other firms / Companies. (ii) Similarly, for the loan amount of Rs.20 lacs drawn by Swastik Corporation on 20.3.1987, the credit amount shown is onlyRs.23,24,000/- and RBI is not shown to have even asked the OfficialLiquidator how could the account be closed when only Rs.3,24,000/- is paid towards interest for more than 15 years. (iii) Likewise, for Vijay Construction Co. also, loan of Rs.20 lacs is shown to have been drawn on 20.3.1987 and the amount shown as credited is Rs.24,71,000/- i.e. interest of only Rs.4,71,000/- for more than15 years. However, despite such anomalies in the statement at Annexure R/3 to the affidavit in reply filed by O.L. the RBI appears to have accepted the said statement at its face value and any queries, after due scrutiny and critical study of O.L's report/affidavit, do not seem to have been raised. It is necessary to note that when a specific query on this count, was put to the counsel for respondent No.6, there was no answer. Instead of taking up the matter with the Official Liquidator on the above issue, reference is made by the RBI to the aforesaid affidavit of respondent No.6 and also to the affidavit of respondent No.4 in its oral arguments as well as in its written submissions, so as to claim that nothing survives in the petition. In view of absence of any convincing reply coupled with the fact that any detail - which may demonstrate that RBI had addressed the issue and had obtained satisfactory replies has not been placed on record, we are not convinced about RBI's contention that nothing survives in the petition. In this context, we may also refer to observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Reserve Bank of India V/s. M. Hanumaiah & Others [ (2008) 1 SCC 770 ] “........When the appeal was taken up on 31-3-2003, the Court was told that fresh elections for the Committee of Management were to take place on March 20. The Division bench took the view that this development had rendered the writ appeal infructuous and disposed it of as such, leaving it open to “Reserve Bank to proceed against the Bank, if necessary, in accordance with law”. 10. We are satisfied that Mr. The Division bench took the view that this development had rendered the writ appeal infructuous and disposed it of as such, leaving it open to “Reserve Bank to proceed against the Bank, if necessary, in accordance with law”. 10. We are satisfied that Mr. Trivedi is right in his submission and though the Managing Committee of Cooperative Bank for the supersession of which action was taken by Reserve Bank may no longer be in existence the issue involved in the case needs to be decided as it is likely to crop up in future in regard to the respondent Bank or other cooperative banks.” (emphasis supplied) 7. An objection on behalf of RBI was raised, against submission of the reports of Joint Parliamentary Committee and Madhavrao Committee and RBI's circulars on record on the plea that the same were not placed on record by following rules and procedure of pleadings. Although we have not taken into consideration the reports of the committees, we cannot help but at least observe that we have not been able to appreciate and comprehend the approach of respondent like RBI of raising objection against petitioner placing on record RBI's circulars, Madhavrao Committee's report and/or Joint Parliamentary Committee's report and against its reference by the Court more so when nothing stopped RBI to place on record counter material. It must also be mentioned that we have relied more on the contents of the affidavits filed on behalf of the RBI referring to its own inspection reports and citing the details of the irregularities, siphoning of funds, etc. in the respondent No.3 bank. More than by the petitioner's allegations we are rather persuaded to look deeper into the matter in view of RBI’s inspection report referred to in its affidavits and in view of the affidavit made by the Official Liquidator. 8. On merits, it emerges from the record and submissions that :- (i) the petitioner had specifically pointed out that despite the inspection reports of the RBI indicating illegalities and irregularities relating to the management and functioning of the bank, no action was being taken by RBI (para 6). 8. On merits, it emerges from the record and submissions that :- (i) the petitioner had specifically pointed out that despite the inspection reports of the RBI indicating illegalities and irregularities relating to the management and functioning of the bank, no action was being taken by RBI (para 6). The petitioner pointed out illegalities committed relating to the management of the bank in particular relating to its audit not being undertaken in the prescribed manner, contradictions in the audit reports, accounts of the bank not being audited at all and accounts not reflecting the true and correct picture of the financial status of the bank (para 7, p.10 to 13). The petitioner had further pointed out that substantial loans were granted to directors of the bank contrary to the provisions of the Act and the need to recall such loans granted to the directors (para 11). The petitioner had also pointed out in rejoinder dated 5.7.1990 that serious allegations were made against the bank by two other members before the Registrar on 24.10.1989 (p.62) on which no action was taken. (ii) the RBI in its affidavit in reply (p.48) has stated that the above issues are essentially only favouritism and irregularities of technical nature (p.51) and that RBI was keeping watch on the functioning of the bank and would take action when deemed necessary (p.52). The further affidavit of RBI dated 17.3.2008 (p.199) indicates that statutory inspection of the bank regarding its financial position was taken on 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 (p.200) and that it had called for statutory reports from the bank. The affidavit states that there were irregularities and illegalities in all the reports and directions were issued for taking corrective steps. (iii) interestingly, the RBI has not produced on record copies of reports or copies of the directions stated to have been issued by it or the procedure for assessment of such reports. There is absolutely no disclosure of relevant facts or records indicating application of mind by RBI to the illegalities consistently revealed by the inspection reports and application of mind to the necessity or otherwise of intervening with the functioning and management of the bank by issuing appropriate directions under the Act. RBI has not disclosed various Circulars issued by it relating to audit of urban cooperative bank, regarding loans to directors etc. RBI has not disclosed various Circulars issued by it relating to audit of urban cooperative bank, regarding loans to directors etc. and has not stated whether compliance of the Circulars was monitored by RBI. Except for raising technical pleas, RBI has not answered the issues on the substance and merits of the matter raised in the petition hence, the petitioner has claimed that an adverse inference needs to be drawn against RBI. (iv) Though even in the report of 1989 referred to in the petition, the irregularity was principally relating to siphoning of funds by giving loans without adequate documentation to the directors, RBI brushed it off as being a technical irregularity, which however was admittedly the principle reason for the bank's folding, as stated by the RBI itself in its subsequent affidavit (p.201). (v) The said averment in the affidavit is an admission of the statements in the petition thus this is not a situation where petition should fail for want of evidence worth its name, or on the ground that petitioner failed to adduce any evidence, more so, when RBI's affidavit acknowledge irregularities in respondent No.3 bank and siphoning of funds etc. The RBI has not been able to justify its inaction from 1989 onwards and/or to explain why action(s) as contemplated under Sections-31, 35, 36, 36AAm 36AB etc. were not taken at relevant time. (vi) It can be, so as to illustrate, noted that despite noticing the irregularities and also the fact that the funds were being siphoned off, no action of appointing or deputing one or more officer to observe the manner in which the affairs of the Banking Company were being conducted or requiring the Banking Company to make such changes as suggested by it or preventing the Banking Company in conducting its affairs in manner other than prescribed by it and/or of removing the Chairman or Director or any other officers including Managing Directors and/or imposing restrictions on loans and advances, were taken by the RBI for long time after 1989 i.e. the date when the petitioner addressed letter bringing the irregularities to the notice of the Bank and requesting to take appropriate urgent actions. (vii) The directions sought for by the petitioner are quite specific as is evident from the prayers. (vii) The directions sought for by the petitioner are quite specific as is evident from the prayers. Even in the letter dated 12/9/1989 addressed by him to the RBI the petitioner had specifically requested for actions, inter alia for, recovery of all debts and to remove persons from board of directors and to appoint other persons. Thus, it does not make a good submission for RBI to claim that specific reliefs are not prayed or prayers are too vague or that submissions are beyond prayers. (viii) There is no justification given by the RBI for not effectively intervening at any time within the eleven years during the time the petition was pending till January, 2002 when the banking operations of the bank were suspended and the Board of Directors superseded. A prayer that RBI should discharge its duty of issuing necessary directions inter-alia to protect the interest of the investors cannot be equated with seeking a relief of not acting otherwise then in accordance with law. (ix) The contention that since the petitioner has not asked for specific directions to be issued by RBI, the petition must fail, is misconceived and irrational. The petitioner has established the facts requiring timely intervention of RBI and in fact his apprehension that the bank would fold otherwise has turned out, by subsequent events, to be well founded. (x) RBI has a power coupled with a duty to take necessary measures as it deems fit. The exercise of the power is not dependent on suggestions of the citizenry. Had RBI taken measures, the Court would have been then called upon to review them within the limitations of permissible judicial review in such cases. But in the instant case there is absolute inaction of the RBI in taking any effective steps whatsoever and there is not an iota of justification given by the RBI for this. (xi) In any case the powers conferred under Article 226 are wide and the Court always has the power to mould the relief as required in the facts and circumstances of the case even if necessary, by relying upon the prayer for granting such other and further reliefs to the petitioner. ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) 9. (xi) In any case the powers conferred under Article 226 are wide and the Court always has the power to mould the relief as required in the facts and circumstances of the case even if necessary, by relying upon the prayer for granting such other and further reliefs to the petitioner. ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) 9. It transpires from available record that even after admitting that the Directors of the bank had siphoned away about Rs.34 crores, (in para 10 of the sur-rejoinder dated 16.4.2009) RBI seems to have not only accepted the defence of respondent No.4 - Mr. HK Shah in his affidavit dated August 1993 without raising any query about interest etc., but has also adopted and advanced the submissions or defence of said respondent in its own support and to justify its own inaction and, going a step further, the RBI has contended that nothing survives or is required to be done now in view of the averments in the petition memo. 10. We have not been able to comprehend as to why RBI should not have taken action against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for about 10 years even after RBI itself prepared the inspection report and acknowledged in its affidavits that almost 2/3rd of the loan amounting to about Rs.103.61 crores was siphoned away and the RBI's attention was invited by the petitioner not only by his letter written in February 1989 but also through this petition in which notice was issued in March 1990. The notice issued by the Court (in present petition, in 1990) did not, as it appears from the material available on record, move the RBI to take any tangible and substantive and effective action and as the record reveals, some actions were taken in 2000 and then 2002 & 2003 i.e. after about 10 years and instead of reflecting or introspecting on the issues, RBI preferred to raise objections against maintainability of petition and about its survival value. 11. From the material on record it comes out that the RBI has not produced any tangible material on record which would give idea about, and demonstrate the facts of, the actions taken, if any, by it from 1989-90 to 2000, rather 2002. 11. From the material on record it comes out that the RBI has not produced any tangible material on record which would give idea about, and demonstrate the facts of, the actions taken, if any, by it from 1989-90 to 2000, rather 2002. It has emerged from the material available on record that RBI in its own report noticed in 1989 the irregularities and yet for almost 10 years (from 1989-90 to 2000-01) any tangible directions were not issued and/or actions were not taken under the provisions of 1949 Act, despite specific requests made by the petitioner. It emerges from the available record that it was in 2002 i.e. after passage of more than almost 10-11 years that directions imposing certain restrictions were issued and in 2003 RBI granted, and that too at the behest of the Registrar, permission for liquidation of respondent No.-3 Bank. 12. From the affidavits by RBI it emerges that RBI has maintained deafening silence regarding the details about substantive and constructive actions taken, if any, between 1989-90 and 2000-2001, except, of course, the statutory inspections. Nothing is stated, or made available on record, which would show that any action in exercise of any of the powers conferred on it were taken (except inspections) during said period. All that has been claimed by RBI is that it was “keeping watch”, or that it exercised off-site supervisory control. However, in view of the provision under the 1949 Act, the powers under sections 20, 36, 36AA, 36AB (as applicable pursuant to introduction of Section 56 by Act 23 of 1965) the RBI is supposed to exercise its wide powers and take prompt actions, more so when serious irregularities come to its notice and/or are brought to its notice. In such cases quick and timely actions are supposed to be and required to be taken, which ought to be preventive rather than being curative or corrective. Such wide powers are not conferred only for “keeping watch.” The stand of RBI (in its affidavit) that it was keeping a watch over the situation amounts to nothing because even a person sitting on a tree and watching the floods near the tree is watching a situation. Even the reference to the Criminal Misc. Application Nos.8449 of 2002, 4841 of 2002, 1649 of 2002, etc. Even the reference to the Criminal Misc. Application Nos.8449 of 2002, 4841 of 2002, 1649 of 2002, etc. and the Criminal SLP No.2174 of 2003 made by RBI in its above referred affidavit and in the “note of action” demonstrate that the applications and SLP were filed in 2002 and 2003 i.e. much after the petitioner invited RBI's attention to the irregularities in September, 1989. Thus, the said actions of filing criminal applications would have effect of locking the stable after the horse fled. 13. We, at this stage, would hasten to add that we should not be understood, or rather misunderstood, to be holding or observing that Respondent no.3 should have been, immediately upon inspection reports and/or after the complaints by the petitioner, closed down. No, that is not what we say or believe or suggest, however we certainly feel that in the facts of the case and in view of the reports, the steps like appointing officer(s) to observe and regulate Respondent No.3's functioning, restriction or prohibition in granting loans in certain cases, removing chairman/director appointing protem director/chairman etc. could have been taken earlier. We feel obliged to observe, in view of the facts of the case and in light of the material on record, is that the powers conferred by various provisions under the Act, including Section 36AA, 36AB and clause (l) of Section 56 are coupled with duty and ought to be exercised in prompt and timely manner so that any delay in similar circumstances may not create irreversible situation or allow the irregularities to perpetrate and perpetuate. Further, quick and time bound and strict compliance of RBI's circulars and vigilant follow-up corrective actions in light of inspection report could have been enforced, to say the least. 14. RBI has to act as a trustee and custodian of Public's trust and confidence in the Banking System and has to protect the interest of the depositors/customers and also of Banks. Any delay, on the part of RBI, in taking timely measures in issuing appropriate directions, instructions or guidelines including restrain or prohibiting orders as may be necessary may cause harm to the depositors and customers and, at times even, to the system as well. The statute requires the Banks to file certain returns with the RBI in prescribed time limit hence it would simultaneously oblige RBI to ensure strict compliance of such requirements by the bank. The statute requires the Banks to file certain returns with the RBI in prescribed time limit hence it would simultaneously oblige RBI to ensure strict compliance of such requirements by the bank. Likewise, if a bank is conducting its affairs in manner which are not in the interest of public or the depositors/customers or the bank itself then also it becomes the duty of RBI to immediately take corrective steps and to issue directions as contemplated under Section 35A, 36A, 36AA, 36AB, etc. and the delay, if any, in these matters may, depending on the facts of the case, amount to neglect or failure on part of RBI. Any dereliction or delay which may amount to neglect or failure to act would not only justify, but may even warrant, exercise of prerogative jurisdiction and powers of High Court under Article 226 to issue mandamus requiring the erring body to mend the position and to stop or control further deterioration and to require RBI to take prompt action in proper and effective exercise of its power and to protect the interests of depositors. 15. In light of the material on record and having regard to the facts of present case and the statutory provisions as well as the various affidavits, we are of the view that in the facts of the case RBI could have and ought to have taken steps to:- ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????taking part in management; or ? and appoint suitable person in place of Chairman /Managing Director/CEO; or ? and/or appoint additional Director; or ? prohibit Banking Company from entering into any/particular type of transactions, or ? depute its officer/s to observe the manner in which affairs were being conducted, or ? instructed the bank about necessary changes and directed the bank to carry out and implement such instructions, and taken follow-up measures; or ? required the bank to make changes in the management as it (RBI) found necessary, or ? prescribed special measures which would be situation specific, or ? ensured that the Bank strictly followed and observed the time limits for filing prescribed reports/accounts/sheets, and penalized any and all delays, and ? closely examined the reports and accounts to detect and plugged all malpractices, ? ensured that the inspections were carried out with all sincerity and not in mechanical and indifferent and routine manner 16. ensured that the Bank strictly followed and observed the time limits for filing prescribed reports/accounts/sheets, and penalized any and all delays, and ? closely examined the reports and accounts to detect and plugged all malpractices, ? ensured that the inspections were carried out with all sincerity and not in mechanical and indifferent and routine manner 16. In present case, from the material available on record, for span of about 10 years any tangible and effective actions with regard to the position of respondent No. 3 bank do not appear to have been taken and it appears that there was an indifferent or casual or lackadaisical attitude towards the situation of respondent no.3 bank and the RBI did not take the note of caution by the petitioner seriously. In the facts of the case, as available on record of present petition, it appears that there is some substance and justification in petitioner's claim that the actions which are claimed to have been taken by RBI reflect that they were belatedly taken or were far and few and little as compared to what was required in view of the nature and extent of the irregularities and illegalities committed in the affairs of the respondent No.3-bank. The RBI ought to have taken the requests of the petitioner seriously and ought to have ensured timely and quick follow-up actions pursuant to its own reports and ought to have promptly exercised the powers and taken steps as provided under Sections 36, 35A, 36AA, 36AA(6) and 36AB (as applicable in light of Section 56 of 1949 Act) 17. The RBI ought to have taken the requests of the petitioner seriously and ought to have ensured timely and quick follow-up actions pursuant to its own reports and ought to have promptly exercised the powers and taken steps as provided under Sections 36, 35A, 36AA, 36AA(6) and 36AB (as applicable in light of Section 56 of 1949 Act) 17. It has been contended by the petitioner that if the RBI properly probes the affairs and the accounts of the respondent no.3-Bank and takes into account the accrued/accumulated interest component in accordance with law as well as RBI's guidelines and as per the lending terms regarding the advances made to the borrowers (particularly the borrowers who figure in the petition or RBI's reports or in Annexures R/3 and R/4 of OL's affidavit) and if the RBI calculates such interest from the date on which the advances were made to the date on which the amounts came to be deposited or actually paid, it would emerge that the statement made in the affidavit of Official Liquidator or of respondent No.4 about full payment and realization of all dues is not accurate and substantial amounts, at least towards interest, remain unpaid. From the material on record this assertion seems to be justified. 18. It appears from the available record that the RBI accepted the report or the statement given by the Official Liquidator, without critically examining it or without detailed examination and inquiry with regard to the details mentioned in report/statement. The respondent No.6-Official Liquidator has, in para 3 of the affidavit dated 16.1.2009 stated as follows:- (3) I submit that as soon as the Bank received the directions from the Honourable Court, the staff of the Bank in liquidation verified the accounts and on verification of the accounts, it appeared that in almost all the accounts, the Bank has received the outstanding dues of the borrowers/debtors and accordingly the accounts were closed. The detail of the said accounts in the tabular form is herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3 and Annexure-R/4 respectively.” By virtue of the averments in said para 3 of the affidavit, tabular statements are made part of the affidavit as Annexure-R/3 and R/4. The detail of the said accounts in the tabular form is herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3 and Annexure-R/4 respectively.” By virtue of the averments in said para 3 of the affidavit, tabular statements are made part of the affidavit as Annexure-R/3 and R/4. So far as the statement at Annexure-R/3 is concerned (which contains some of the details of most of the accounts referred to in the RBI's report made in 1989) it transpires that the Official Liquidator has conveniently not mentioned the dates on which the amounts came to be credited or settled and the dates on which the accounts were declared closed. Some of the anomalies, which prima facie came to our notice, have been mentioned hereinabove earlier in para 6.10, however, it appears that there could be similar anomalies or drawbacks in respect of other accounts as well, which could not be identified for want of the details regarding the various dates on which the loans were sanctioned and the dates on which the accounts were treated as settled and closed and the dates on which the amounts were paid. From the details mentioned in the statement and from the manner in which they are mentioned it appear that the statement does not disclose the details about the interest component (i.e. the total interest accrued on the principal loan amount from the date on which the loan was sanctioned and the date on which the amount came to be paid and account came to be treated as settled/closed). It also appears that principal amount and a small part of interest has been recovered/paid and substantial or major chunk of interest has remained unpaid and/or written off. The aspects, such as, whether the action of settling and closing the account has been in consonance and conformity with the guidelines of RBI or not and/or whether it has been in accordance with the lending in terms or not etc., do not appear to have been addressed (as it has not been stated in its affidavits) by the RBI, while accepting the Official Liquidator's statement that all accounts have been duly closed. 19. 19. In such circumstances and in light of such facts, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent No.6-Official Liquidator to place, entire and complete details in respect of all accounts mentioned in the tabular statements annexed to the O.L.'s affidavit as Annexure-R/3 and R/4 including the details and calculations regarding the principal amount, date of sanction of loan, the dates on which the amounts were paid and the accumulated unpaid interest, etc. as well as the details as to whether the entire amount comprising ?the principal as well as the total accumulated interest component? was paid or not before the account came to be treated as closed/settled, before the respondent No.1-RBI and respondent No.5-District Registrar and we also deem it proper to ask the respondent No.1-RBI and respondent No.5-District Registrar to examine all relevant and complete details regarding the various accounts mentioned in Annexure-R/3 and R/4 to the Official Liquidator's affidavit dated 16.1.2009 and to verify the accuracy of the details, and ascertain as to whether the entire due and payable amounts including interest component were received or not and also to explore the possibility, in the event complete amounts are not paid, of taking necessary and appropriate steps, through Official Liquidator, to get the balance amount, if any, recovered. 20. In light of facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the learned Single Judge by order dated 11.4.2000 referred the matter to the Division Bench taking up Public Interest Litigation, and considering the nature of grievance ventilated by the petitioner, we deem it proper to dispose of this petition with the observations made earlier and also with the observation that when any irregularities or illegalities regarding conduct of affairs of bank including cooperative bank are, through inspection reports or audit reports, brought to the notice of the RBI or when any irregularities or illegalities come to the notice of the RBI, the RBI may immediately consider taking preventive and restrictive as well as corrective and curative measures, as may be considered necessary, such as exercising the powers conferred on it by virtue of Sections 35, 36, 36AA, 36AB or other appropriate provisions under the 1949 Act, keeping in mind that the said powers are coupled with duties. The petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions in para 19 and observations in para 15 subject to the same, Rule is discharged. No costs.