JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Gupta, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia for the following reliefs : “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 7.8.2004 passed by respondent No. 1. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to regularize the extension counter of People’s Cooperative Bank Ltd. situate at Kalpana Plaza, Birhana Road, Kanpur. (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents concerned not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of the extension counter. (iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the condition contained in clause 8 of part 1 of Circular No. 84.07.01.00-92-93 dt. 9.6.1993 in so far as it provides restriction on opening of extension counter in residential colonies, shopping complex and market places.” 2. The petitioner has also filed an amendment application dated 19.2.2009 whereby the order dated 13.2.2009 passed by Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India has been challenged. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are essentially as follows : 4. The petitioner was duly registered as a cooperative society under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The respondent No. 1 Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Respondent Bank) in exercise of its powers under Section 22(1) read with Section 56(O) of ‘The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), granted a licence to the petitioner to commence and carry on banking business and the petitioner w.e.f. 16.8.1998 commenced the banking business at 9/56 Arya Nagar, Kanpur. The Respondent Bank came to know in September, 2000 that the petitioner was contemplating to open an extension counter at Kalpana Plaza, 24/147, Patkapur, Kanpur which according to the respondent bank was a shopping complex. Therefore, the respondent bank vide letter dated 18.9.2000 advised the petitioner to desist from opening extension counter as the same was in violation of Section 23 of the Act and it was not eligible to open the extension counter under the existing policy. Respondent Bank again advised the petitioner by letter dated 19.10.2000, not to open an extension counter without prior permission of the Respondent Bank and further mentioned in the said letter that the place of opening the extension counter was a market place and therefore, it was not eligible to open the extension counter. Respondent Bank again advised the petitioner by letter dated 19.10.2000, not to open an extension counter without prior permission of the Respondent Bank and further mentioned in the said letter that the place of opening the extension counter was a market place and therefore, it was not eligible to open the extension counter. The petitioner in spite of the aforesaid letters by the Respondent Bank opened an extension counter at Kalpana Plaza, 24/147, Patkapur, Kanpur and thereafter made an application dated 16.11.2000 for grant of post facto approval by the Respondent Bank. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 56 of the Act, the Respondent Bank issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15.6.2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty of Rs.1 lac should not be imposed upon the petitioner bank for violating the provisions of the Act. The petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2001 but instead filed a Writ Petition No. 3088(M/B) of 2001 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court and Court by an interim order dated 2.7.2001 stayed the operation of the order dated 15.6.2001. This Court later on after hearing the parties vacated the interim order passed earlier on 2.7.2001 and observed inter alia as follows : “The Reserve Bank of India is of the opinion that the extension counter has been opened by the petitioner bank at Kalpana Plaza a market place in Kanpur without complying with the relative eligibility norms specified in para 1 of the circular dated 9th June, 1993 and despite repeated advices from the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioner bank has not closed the extension counter and therefore action has been proposed in the impugned order dated 15.6.2001, the operation of which has been stayed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider expedient it to continue the interim order especially in view of the averments made in para 23 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, the interim order dated 2.7.2001 is vacated and CM Application No. 1923 is rejected and CM Application No. 10288 of 2001 and 1344 of 2002 are allowed. Since the parties have exchanged the pleadings and as jointly prayed, list this petition sometime in 3rd week of March, 2002. Accordingly, the interim order dated 2.7.2001 is vacated and CM Application No. 1923 is rejected and CM Application No. 10288 of 2001 and 1344 of 2002 are allowed. Since the parties have exchanged the pleadings and as jointly prayed, list this petition sometime in 3rd week of March, 2002. The extension counters opened by petitioner bank at Kalpana Plaza, Kanpur shall cease to operate and function w.e.f. 1st March, 2002 so as to enable the petitioner bank to wind up its affairs.” 5. It appears that after the vacation of the interim order dated 2.7.2001, Writ Petition No. 8712 of 2002 was filed by the depositors in this Court without impleading the Respondent Bank as a party and obtained an interim order. However, the said writ petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 24.4.2003. For ready reference judgment and order dated 24.4.2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8712 of 2002 is reproduced below : “The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.2.2002 issued by the respondent Bank whereby its extension counter at Kalpana Plaza, Kanpur was sought to be closed down with effect from 1.3.2002. In our opinion there is no merit in this petition. It is not for this Court to decide whether there should be any extension counter of the Bank or not. That is in the exclusive discretion of the Bank. It is not proper for the judiciary to interfere anywhere or wherever it likes. It is for the Bank to decide where to have an extension counter and not for this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.” 6. Sri B.K. Awasthi, the Managing Director of the petitioner bank also filed an affidavit in a contempt petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court stating inter alia that the petitioner bank had ceased all operations and had stopped all functioning at the extension counter. Writ Petition No. 3088(M/B) of 2001 filed by the petitioner bank was finally disposed of directing the Respondent Bank to decide the application of the petitioner bank dated 16.11.2000 for opening the extension counter within six weeks after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 7. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank by impugned order dated 7.8.2004, after placing reliance on the Circular dated 9.6.1993, dismissed the application of the petitioner for extension/regularization of extension counter under Section 23 read with Section 56 of the Act. 7. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank by impugned order dated 7.8.2004, after placing reliance on the Circular dated 9.6.1993, dismissed the application of the petitioner for extension/regularization of extension counter under Section 23 read with Section 56 of the Act. The reasons mentioned in the said order, which has been impugned in the present petition are as follows : “Our Circular UBD No. PCB.84/07.01.00/92-93 dated June 9, 1993 addressed to all primary urban cooperative banks, stipulated that extension counters may be opened within the premises of educational institutions, factories, big industrial units and hospitals of which the concerned urban cooperative bank is the principal banker. The Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., opened extension counter on October 8, 2000 in the premises of M/s. Kalpana Mercantile Limited which was not an authorized location under the said circular. Another stipulation is that the extension counters will be opened only in cases where banking facilities are not available within a distance of 1 Km. from the proposed location. In the bank’s application dated November 6, 2000, it is stated that three branches of public sector banks, such as State Bank of Indore, Union Bank of India and State Bank of India were functioning within a distance of 500 mtrs. from the location the Peoples’ Bank opened the extension counter. Therefore, the place where the extension counter was opened unauthorisedly by the bank was not a permitted location. The bank was earlier advised vide letter dated September 18, 2000, to desist from opening the extension counter in the market place and shopping complexes. Despite the advice for desisting from opening extension counter, the bank opened extension counter. Vide our letter dated October 19, 2000, the bank was again advised to desist from opening extension counter drawing attention to our circular No. UBD(PCB) 84/07.01.00/92-93 dated June 9, 1993, which clearly stipulates the places and the purpose for which extension counter can be opened. Further, in terms of para 10 of our circular dated June 9, 1993, the extension counter opened without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in the circular were not liable to be considered for regularization and were required to be closed down.” 8. Further, in terms of para 10 of our circular dated June 9, 1993, the extension counter opened without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in the circular were not liable to be considered for regularization and were required to be closed down.” 8. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner has also filed an application dated 4.7.2008 for regularization of the extension counter at Kalpana Plaza, 24/147, Patkapur, Kanpur and for converting it into a branch and the said application has also been rejected by order dated 13.2.2009 by the Respondent Bank. 9. We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 10. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed in gross infraction of the principle of natural justice inasmuch no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner bank despite specific observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.7.2004. It is further submitted that the Kalpana Plaza is not a market place/shopping complex rather it comprises Housing Corporate offices of various companies and is further submitted that the Respondent Bank has deliberately and wrongly construed its own guidelines only with a view to harass the petitioner. It is further submitted that the condition contained in the policy/guidelines dated 9.6.1993 that the extension counter will be opened only in cases where banking facilities are not available within the distance of 1 Km. has been dispensed with by subsequent circular dated 20.8.1994. 11. On the other hand Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has submitted that the controversy involved in this matter has already been settled in the earlier Writ Petition No. 8712 of 2002 wherein a few depositors of the petitioners bank had challenged the order of closing the extension counter before this Court and this Court by order dated 24.4.2003 had dismissed the said writ petition observing that it is not for this Court to decide that there should be any extension counter of the bank or not and that is the exclusive discretion of the bank and further held that it is not proper for the judiciary to interfere wherever it likes. It is for the bank to decide where to have an extension counter and not for this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank that in the teeth of the aforesaid order, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the order of the Respondent Bank dated 7.8.2004 whereby the application of the petitioner bank dated 6.11.2000 for opening/regularization of its extension counter has been rejected. 12. It is further submitted that the order dated 24.4.2003 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 8712 of 2002 has attained finality as it had not been further challenged before the Apex Court. Therefore, the said order is binding on the parties of this writ petition, particularly when the present writ petitioner was a party in the said writ petition. 13. It is further submitted that the Managing Director of the petitioner bank himself had given an affidavit in a Contempt Petition No. 981 of 2002 (filed against the Director and other officers of the petitioner bank) wherein it was stated that the bank had ceased all operations and had stopped all functioning at the extension counter but the aforesaid facts have deliberately not been stated in the present writ petition. The instant writ petition is, therefore, nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank has also drawn the attention of this Court to the circular dated 9.6.1993 issued in pursuance of the Act as applicable to the Cooperative Banks wherein the policy has been laid down regarding the opening of extension counter, shifting of offices, closers of branches etc. For ready reference condition Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 of part 1 of the said circular are quoted below : “I. Opening of extension counters Urban cooperative banks, other than those which are unlicensed, classified as non-viable, weak and not complying with Section 11(1) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 (AACS), may open extension counters without the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India, subject to the following conditions : (1) The facilities at an extension counter should be restricted to— (a) acceptance of deposits; (b) issue and encashment of drafts and mail transfers; (c) encashment of travellers’ cheques; and (d) collection of bills. (2) Extension counters may be opened within the premises of educational institutions, factories, big industrial units and hospitals of which the concerned urban cooperative bank is the principal banker. (4) Extension counters will be opened only in cases where banking facilities are not available within a distance of 1 Km. (8) An extension counter should not be opened merely for collection of fees, payment of bills for electricity, water, telephones, etc. as it is primarily the responsibility of the concerned institution. It should also not be opened in residential colonies, shopping complex, market places and places of worship." 15. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank placing reliance on the aforesaid circular, has stated that the extension counter of the Cooperative Bank can only be opened within the premises of the educational institutions, factories, big industrial units and hospitals of which the concerned Urban Cooperative Bank is the principal banker and further submitted that extension counter can be opened only in cases where banking facilities are not available within a distance of 1 Km. Reliance was also placed on the Clause 8 of the aforesaid policy which provides that the extension counter should also not be opened in residential colonies, shopping complex, market places and places of worship. 16. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, Kalpana Plaza, Kanpur wherein the extension counter was opened is a shopping complex. The Respondent Bank vide letter dated 18.9.2000 and 19.10.2000 had advised the petitioner to cease the extension counter, since the same was in violation of the Section 23 of the Act and the Circular dated 9.6.1993. The petitioner bank, in utter disregard to the provisions of the Regulation/Circular and the advise of the Respondent Bank, opened the extension counter illegally in Kalpana Plaza which is a shopping complex. 17. Learned counsel for the Respondent Bank further stated that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is only with regard to the opening/regularization of extension counter but the petitioner, unnecessarily by way of amendment application, is trying to seek permission to convert the extension counter into a branch and the said controversy cannot be decided in the present writ petition and moreover the application of the petitioner for converting the extension counter into a branch stands already rejected by the Respondent Bank by order dated 13.2.2009 after assigning good and valid reasons. 18. 18. It has been further clarified by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank that the extension counter of the Cooperative Bank, Kanpur was opened with the prior permission of the Respondent Bank in the premises of P.P.N. Degree College which is admittedly an educational institution and the said extension counter has been opened in conformity with the guidelines provided in the Circular dated 9.6.2003. He has, therefore, submitted that no discrimination has been made. 19. It is further submitted that the Reserve Bank of India had inspected the premises where the extension counter was opened on 7.4.2004 by the petitioner bank and the impugned order was passed after considering the entire material available on the record and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and when the Respondent Bank has not permitted the petitioner to open the extension counter then it was not possible to grant permission for converting the extension counter into a branch. The application for seeking amendment is totally misconceived and not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 20. It is further pointed out that the letter dated 6.11.2003 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) upon which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner is not at all relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the matter. By letter dated 6.11.2003 the petitioner was advised not to go to Mumbai to discuss the matter. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank the said letter was issued on 6.11.2003 which is much prior to the passing of the order dated 13.7.2004 whereby writ petition No. 3088 of 2001 was finally disposed of and the Respondent Bank was directed to decide the application of the petitioner bank within six weeks. As such the said letter dated 6.11.2003 has no bearing and cannot be taken into consideration. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank that although no specific direction was given by the order dated 13.7.2004 to afford personal hearing to the petitioner but still the petitioner was given personal hearing before passing of the impugned order. 21. The controversy arising in the present matter is with regard to the opening of the extension counter by the petitioner. 21. The controversy arising in the present matter is with regard to the opening of the extension counter by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank no extension counter can be opened by the petitioner bank in view of the circular dated 9.6.1993 which has been issued under Section 23 of the Act framing policy with regard to the opening of extension counter, shifting of offices, closures of branches etc. of Urban Cooperative Banks. The said circular clearly restricts the Cooperative Bank to open the extension counter strictly in accordance with the guidelines provided therein. Clause 2 of the Circular clearly provides that the extension counter may be opened within the premises of educational institutions, factories, big industrial units and hospitals of which the concerned Urban Cooperative Bank is the principal banker. Clause 8 inter alia provides that it should also not be opened in residential colonies, shopping complex, market places and places of worship. 22. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent Bank it is stated that Kalpana Plaza wherein the said extension counter was opened is a shopping complex. For ready reference the relevant portion of paragraph 41 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below : “It is further stated that Kalpana Plaza apart from Housing Corporate Offices as alleged is a Premier Shopping Complex Mall. In Kanpur Housing various retail outlet of brand and articles and it was thus not open to the petitioner to open an extension counter in the precincts of the said shopping complex.” 23. No specific denial has been made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit to the aforesaid averments. The extension counter as per the circular dated 9.6.1993 is not located within the premises of educational institutions, factories, big industrial units and hospitals. As such the opening of an extension counter in Kalpana Plaza which is neither an educational institution, factory, big industrial unit and hospital, is in violation of the specific guidelines as provided in the circular dated 9.6.1993. Although clause 11 of the said policy provides that post facto approval can be sought within one month from the date of opening of the extension counter but in the present case the provision is not at all applicable. Although clause 11 of the said policy provides that post facto approval can be sought within one month from the date of opening of the extension counter but in the present case the provision is not at all applicable. The Respondent Bank even prior to the opening of the extension counter had very clearly advised the petitioner not to open the extension counter and move to open an extension counter was clearly disapproved and the petitioner could not have opened the extension counter without the permission of the Respondent Bank as provided in the Act. 24. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, is however justified in submitting that clause 4 of the circular which provides that the extension counter can be opened only in cases where bank facilities are not available within the distance of 1 km., is not applicable since the said clause was dispensed with by the subsequent circular dated 20.8.1994. 25. This apart, in the earlier writ petition filed by the depositors of the bank challenging the closure of the extension counter of the petitioner bank, this Court had very specifically, while dismissing the writ petition, observed in its order dated 24.4.2003 that it is not for this Court to decide whether there should be any extension counter of the Bank or not. That is in the exclusive discretion of the Bank. It is not proper for the judiciary to interfere anywhere or wherever it likes. It is for the Bank to decide where to have an extension counter and not for this Court. It also needs to be noticed that even though the petitioner has prayed for quashing the conditions contained in clause 8 of paragraph I of circular dated 9.6.1993, but there is no serious challenge and nor are there any specific pleadings to that effect made in the writ petition as to why the said clause of the circular dated 9.6.1993 is invalid or illegal or unconstitutional. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to examine the validity of the said clause 8 of the circular dated 9.6.1993 in the absence of any specific pleadings or argument. 26. So far as the submissions with regard to the violation of principle of natural justice is concerned that too has no force. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to examine the validity of the said clause 8 of the circular dated 9.6.1993 in the absence of any specific pleadings or argument. 26. So far as the submissions with regard to the violation of principle of natural justice is concerned that too has no force. Firstly this Court while relegating the matter back to the Respondent Bank by order dated 13.7.2004 did not specifically direct that the Respondent Bank should afford any personal hearing. This apart, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any application or any request for seeking personal hearing was ever made by the petitioner before the Respondent Bank before the passing of the impugned order. This apart the Respondent Bank in paragraph 64 of the counter affidavit has specifically pleaded that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order passed by the Respondent Bank clearly shows that the reasons assigned by the Respondent Bank are convincing, cogent and satisfactory. It is also quite clear from the impugned order that the Respondent Bank has considered the objections and the contentions of the petitioner bank before passing the impugned order and the application has been rejected in accordance with Section 23 read with Section 56 of the Act. It has also come on record that Managing Director of the petitioner bank had also given an undertaking in the contempt petition No. 981 of 2002 that the bank had ceased all operations and had stopped all functioning at the extension counter. 27. Section 23 of the Act also provides that without obtaining the prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India no bank shall open a new place of business. As such the petitioner bank could not have opened the extension counter without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Before opening the extension counter or the branch the petitioner has to satisfy the requirements as provided under the Act and the Reserve Bank of India cannot be compelled to pass an order for opening the extension counter or branch in violation of the Act or any policy made thereunder. 28. The Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. 28. The Apex Court in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and another v. Reserve Bank of India, JT 1991(1) SC 2405 : (1992) 2 SCC 343 , has observed as under : “Reserve Bank of India which is banker’s bank is a creature of statute. It has large contingent of expert advise relating to the matters affecting the economy of entire country and nobody can doubt the bona fides of the Reserve Bank, in issuing the impugned directions of 1987. The Reserve Bank plays an important role in the economy and financial affairs of India and one of its important functions is to regulate banking system in the country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed : Court are not to interfere with economic policy, which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the Courts to sit in judgment over the matters of economic policies and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies.” 29. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Suryanarayana and others v. N.1453, the Kolluru Parvathi Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others, AIR 1986 AP 244 has also observed in paragraph 13 of the Judgement as under : “This Court will be highly chary to enter into area or scrutinizing the decision of Reserve Bank as an appellate authority. The Reserve Bank is a potential body with its necessary expertise in the matter of banking and its affairs to take a proper decision and it is not for this Court to interdict or interfere unless the decision is malafide.” 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. P.N.R. Upadhyaya and others, AIR 1998 SC 3000 , has observed in paragraph 11 as under : “That the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 21 or 35 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 are statutory in nature and are required to be complied with by the banks is not in any doubt. An ombudsman appointed under the Scheme is obliged to regulate the working of the banks and issue directions to them to carry out the directions and circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 21 or 35 of the Act.” 31. During the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed by the petitioner, mainly for converting the extension counter into a branch. During the pendency of the writ petition an amendment application was filed by the petitioner, mainly for converting the extension counter into a branch. Though the controversy involved in the present writ petition is only with regard to the opening of extension counter as such, but we have examined this plea also and find that when the permission for the extension counter cannot be granted in view of the provisions of the Act and the circular dated 9.6.1993, the prayer for converting the extension counter into a branch is misconceived and untenable and cannot be granted. The order dated 13.2.2009 whereby the application of the petitioner for shifting the extension counter into a branch has been rejected, clearly shows that the Respondent Bank has assigned cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason for rejecting the application dated 4.7.2008 as can be seen from the order which is as follows : “Please refer to your letter No. 10825/08-09 dated July 4, 2008 on the captioned subject. 2. In this connection, we invite a reference to our letter CO.BL.839/07.01.1831/2004-05 dated August 7, 2004 (copy enclosed for ready reference) rejecting your request for opening/regularization of the captioned Extension Counter. Further, we advise that in terms of para No. 3.3.6 of the Master Circular on Area of operation, branch authorisation policy, opening/up-gradation of Extension Counters etc dated July 1, 2008 extension counters opened unauthorized will not be considered for regularization/up-gradation. In addition to what is stated in our letter dated 7.8.2004, we advise that as your bank has not fulfilled the following norms as stipulated in our circular UBD.CO.LS.Cir. No. 52/07.01.000/2007-08 dated June 16, 2008, it is not eligible to open any branch/EC/up-gradation of EC : (i) Net NPAs are above the stipulated ceiling of 10%. (ii) Net worth is less than minimum stipulation of Rs. 400 lakh for opening an office in Kanpur city. (iii) Besides opening of EC in a commercial complex is not allowed. 3. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the bank’s application July 4, 2008 for regularization/up-gradation into a branch is hereby rejected under Section 23 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS).” Thus in view of the aforesaid discussions, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ————