Judgment :- 1. This writ petition was initially filed as a public interest litigation seeking declaration that the provision of Section 45-ZA(1) and (2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and irrational. Though this petition was initially institutied as public interest litigation subsequently by order dated 09.11.2009 of the Division Bench of this Court, this petition is treated as W.P. (GM-RES). 2. The petitioner, a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act has filed this petition to espouse the cause of substantial number of its members who have either deposited or in the normal course deposit money with various commercial banks under term deposits/fixed deposits and have exercised the option of appointing a nominee to receive such deposits in the event of their death under Section 45-ZA(1) and (2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (‘Act’ for short). 3. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid provision tend to abrogate or nullify the law of succession and/or inheritance as may be applicable and also imposes prohibition against nomination of more than one person as nominee for the said depositor. Though initially challenge was to the provisions of 45-ZA(1) and (2), at the time of arguments of this petition the Counsel appearing for the petitioner would concede that he will give up his challenge regarding the validity and correctness of the provision of Section 45-ZA (1), which deals with restriction of nomination to only one person to represent the deposit. He would confine his case with respect to the legality, validity and correctness of section 45-ZA (2) of the Act, which according him, on the death of the depositor substitute the nominee to exercise all the rights of the depositor with respect to the deposit in question, which will take away the right of the legal heirs available to them under the Law of Succession. 4. It is further contended that though the aforesaid provision of law was introduced by way of amendment to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 in the year 1985 by Act No.1/1984, which has come into force from 29.03.1985 with an intention to protect the interest of the depositors in case of their death to release the same in favour of their nominee without much delay and legal hassle so far as the release of the amount deposited by the deceased person. In effect it would restrict and take away the right of the legal heirs available to them under law of succession and inheritance. The said Section 45-ZA reads as under:- “45ZA. Nomination for payment of depositors’ money – (1) Where a deposit is held by a banking company to the credit of one or more persons, the depositor or, as the case may be, all the depositors together may nominate in the prescribed manner, one person to whom in the event of the death of the sole depositor or the death of all the depositors, the amount of deposit may be returned by the banking company. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any disposition, whether testamentary or otherwise, in respect of such deposit, where a nomination made in the prescribed manner purports to confer on any person the right to receive the amount of deposit from the banking company, the nominee shall, on the death of the sole depositor, or, as the case may be, on the death of all the depositors, become entitled to all the rights of the sole depositor or, as the case may be, of the depositors, in relation to such deposit to the exclusion of all other persons, unless the nomination is varied or cancelled in the prescribed manner. (3) Where the nominee is a minor, it shall be lawful for the depositor making the nomination to appoint in the prescribed manner any person to receive the amount of deposit in the event of his death during the minority of the nominee. (4) Payment by a banking company in accordance with the provisions of this section shall constitute a full discharge to the baking company of its liability in respect of the deposit: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall effect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section.” 5. In this proceedings, the contesting respondents namely respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance though their counsel and filed their statement together contending that the amended Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with respect to Section 45-ZA(1) and (2) is introduced to protect the interest of the depositors and it is similar to Section 39 of Insurance Act, 1938, Section 39-A of Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 and Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959, which similarly provide for appointment of nominee to whom the amount will have to be paid in the event of the death of the insurer or unit holder. Both the respondents contended that the provision under challenge being similar to the said provisions the validity of which are upheld by the Apex Court in the matter of Vishin N. Khanchandani –Vs.- Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724 upholding the validity of Section 6, 7 and 8 of Government Savings Certificates Act, 1959 following the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Smt. Sarbati Devi –Vs- Usha devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 , wherein the validity of Section 39 of Life Insurance Act, 1938 regarding nomination is upheld. 6. Therefore, both the respondents contended that the provisions of Section 45-ZA(2) being similar to the aforesaid two provisions clear restricts itself to the right of nominee to receive the deposit amount in the event of the death of the depositor and does not either create an independent right to him or that the said nominee will be substituted to the place of depositor thereby allowing him all the rights available to the depositor with regard to such deposit to take away the right of his legal heirs and others having claim over the said asset to exercise the same. 7. Heard the Counsel for petitioner and respondents. On going though the impugned provision Section 45-ZA(2) of the act, it is clearly seen that the entire Section 45-ZA deals with nomination for payment of depositors money in the event of their death and each of the clause 1 to 4 deals with different category of deposits. 7. Heard the Counsel for petitioner and respondents. On going though the impugned provision Section 45-ZA(2) of the act, it is clearly seen that the entire Section 45-ZA deals with nomination for payment of depositors money in the event of their death and each of the clause 1 to 4 deals with different category of deposits. Clause 1 deals with deposits held by banking company, clause 2 deals with deposit made by individuals, clause 3 deals with the case where the nominee is a minor and clause 4 deals with the right to banking institution to claim full discharge of its liability by following the nomination as mentioned in clause 1 to 3 above. While reading Section 45-ZA clauses 1 to 4 the proviso to the said Section which reads as under shall be read along with each of the sub-clause to the aforesaid Section 45-ZA. “Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall effect the right or claim which any person may have against the person to whom any payment is made under this section.” 8. If Section 45-ZA clause (2) is read with the proviso the same would put to rest all the questions and doubts raised by the petitioner so far as the abrogation of the rights of the legal heirs of depositors pursuant to clause (2) of the aforesaid Section. If the said clause (2) of Section 45-ZA is read with proviso it clearly indicates that the right of the nominee is subject to the right or claim which any person may have includes the legal heirs, legatees under the Will and such other persons having legal right to claim the said money. Clause (2) to Section 45-ZA does not give exclusive right to the nominee to deal with such deposit amount dehors the legal heirs of deceased under various provisions of succession and other related laws. 9. Therefore, as rightly contended by the respondents the apprehension of the petitioner that clause (2) of Section 45-ZA would tend to abrogate or nullify the law of succession and/or inheritance is without basis. The legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Smt. Sarbati Devi, referred to above, still hold the field of nomination and the right of nominees in such matters. 10. The legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Vishin N. Khanchandani and Smt. Sarbati Devi, referred to above, still hold the field of nomination and the right of nominees in such matters. 10. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments this Court find that there is no justification in the contentions raised by the petitioner to declare the provision of Section 45-ZA(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and irrational. Hence, holding that interpretation of Section 45-ZA(2) is required to be read and understood in the light of the ratio as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Vishin N. Khanchandani –vs- Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 724 and Smt. Sarbati Devi –vs-Usha Devi, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 424 , writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.