ORDER : S.K. Gangele, J. Both the petitions have been tagged together in pursuance to the order passed by the Supreme Court in S. L.P. No. 3532/14 and heard together. Both the petitions are disposed of by this common order. W.P. No. 6628/12 has been filed against the show cause notice dated 9.4.2012. The petitioner also prayed a relief that the respondent be restrained in passing any order pursuance to the show cause notice dated 9.3.2012. 2. W.P. No. 12864/2011 has been filed for quashment of the order dated 5.4.2011. The petitioner also challenged the initial order imposing restrictions on the Bank in regard to withdrawal of amount by the depositors and subsequent orders. 3. During the course of arguments learned Counsel for the petitioner has agreed that the petitioner has submitted detail reply of show cause notice and Bank shall pass appropriate order after considering the reply of the petitioner and affording opportunity of hearing against show cause notice within stipulated period. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has no objection in this regard. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed the relief in regard to challenge of the order dated 5th of April, 2010, by which the directions were issued by the respondent under Section 35-A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Another direction was issued on 6th of April, 2010. 6. The petitioner-Bank is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was registered as Bank on 6.1.1999 and licence was issued to the petitioner by Reserve Bank of India on 12.2.1999 for the purpose of carrying on the Banking business within municipal limits of Bhopal. From 1999-2008 the Reserve Bank of India conducted six inspections of the Bank and no irregularities were found by the Reserve Bank of India. 7. The Reserve Bank of India conducted another scrutiny in August, 2009. By the order dated 5th of April, 2010 the Reserve Bank of India restricted the Banking activities of the petitioner-Bank and imposed a condition that depositors would not be permitted to withdraw more than the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner was directed not to renew the term deposits on maturity. By the order dated 5th of April, 2010 the Reserve Bank of India restricted the Banking activities of the petitioner-Bank and imposed a condition that depositors would not be permitted to withdraw more than the amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The petitioner was directed not to renew the term deposits on maturity. The Reserve Bank of India also imposed other restrictions, which are as under: “(iii) May incur expenditure that may be required to be met by the Bank in respect of the following items: (a) Salaries of employees. (b) Rent, rates and taxes. (c) Electricity bills. (d) Printing, stationery, etc. (e) Postage and telegram, etc. (f) Legal expenses comprising stamp duty/registration changes/arbitration fees which are payable at rates stipulated in the concerned statutes of rules of Court/RCS/DRT. (g) Court fee in compliance with the Court orders/under provisions of statutes. (h) Payment of fees to lawyers not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) in each case. (iv) May pay premium payable to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation. May incur expenditure on any other item insofar as it is in the opinion of the Bank necessary for carrying on the day to day administration of the Bank provided that total expenditure on any item in the calendar month shall not exceed the average monthly expenditure on account of that item during the period of six months preceding the date of the directive or if no expenditure has been incurred on account of that item in the past, it should not exceed a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) (vi) The Bank shall not incur or extinguish any other liability unless specifically approved in writing by the Reserve Bank of India. (vii) The Bank may invest in Government/SLR approved securities. (viii) Payment in respect of gratuity/provident fund benefits to retiring employees. (ix) Payment in respect of leave encashment and superannuation benefits to retiring/retired employees with the approval of RCS. 2. A copy of this directive should be forwarded to each depositors of the Bank.” 8. On 6th April, 2010 another order was issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the effect that petitioner-Bank shall submit a statement in the prescribed form as on last day of each month regarding expenditure incurred by the Bank in the month by the 7th of the succeeding month. On 6th April, 2010 another order was issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the effect that petitioner-Bank shall submit a statement in the prescribed form as on last day of each month regarding expenditure incurred by the Bank in the month by the 7th of the succeeding month. The restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India and directions issued be displayed at prominent places and shareholders be also notified accordingly. 9. Respondent-Reserve Bank of India in its counter affidavit pleaded that Banking Regulation Act, 1949 empowers RBI to supervise and regulate the Banking institutions in the country. By the Act 23 of 1965 enacted in the Parliament, named as Banking Laws (Application to Co-operative Societies) Act, 1965, the Act of 1949 has been made applicable to the Co-operative societies carrying the business of Banking. It came into effect from 1st March, 1996 and in accordance with Section 22 of the Act, 1949, every co-operative Bank is obliged to comply the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and directions/guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time-to-time. 10. Section 35-A prescribes powers of the Reserve Bank of India to give directions. The aforesaid section reads as under: “35A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give directions: (1) Where the Reserve Bank is satisfied that-- (a) in the public interest; or (aa) in the interest of Banking policy; or (b) 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 (c) 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) The Reserve Bank may, on representation made to it or on its own motion, modify or cancel any direction issued under Sub-section (1), and in so modifying or cancelling any direction may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to which the modification or cancellation shall have effect.” 11. (2) The Reserve Bank may, on representation made to it or on its own motion, modify or cancel any direction issued under Sub-section (1), and in so modifying or cancelling any direction may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to which the modification or cancellation shall have effect.” 11. Reserve Bank of India conducted an inspection of the Bank on 31st March, 2009 and it has been found that financial position of the petitioner-Bank had been vicarious. The Reserve Bank of India conducted the aforesaid inspection in the interest of public and general depositors of the petitioner-Bank and issued an order on 5th April, 2010 with certain directions to the petitioner-Bank in exercise of powers under Section 35-A r/w Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. In accordance with the directions issued on 5th of April, 2010 the petitioner-Bank was precluded from withdrawal of deposits in excess of Rs. 1,000/- per depositor, as major irregularities were found in the inspection report. Aforesaid directions were subsequently extended from time to time for a further period of six months and directions are still in force. 12. Main grievance in accordance with the affidavit filed by the Reserve Bank of India against the petitioner-Bank is that petitioner-Bank issued large number of high value fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) to its directors and relatives concerned without obtaining original FDRs and due discharge from beneficiaries thereof. The authorities during the course of raid seized various FDRs worth crores of rupees found in the lockers of RKD group, which were misused. An investigation was also conducted by CBI in order to ascertain factual position. 13. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that net additional outside liability of the Bank towards 73 cancelled/paid FDRs found missing as on the date of inspection and 20 FDRs issued in joint names cancelled/paid without obtaining due discharge from the account holders. The petitioner society did not misuse the deposits. However, society had used various fraudulent FDRs made in the single name of the society or the institution run by the society issued by the co-operative Bank to its customers include RKDF group for the purpose of affiliation of its institutions/colleges by the AICTE. The petitioner society did not misuse the deposits. However, society had used various fraudulent FDRs made in the single name of the society or the institution run by the society issued by the co-operative Bank to its customers include RKDF group for the purpose of affiliation of its institutions/colleges by the AICTE. The petitioner-Bank did not submit the explanation on the following issues: “(a) Why did it cancel/paid the FDRs of such large amounts and in such large numbers without obtaining the original FD receipts from the customers concerned and/or without obtaining due discharge of the beneficiaries of the FDRs concerned. (b) How did not co-operative Bank find the contention of the customer acceptable that they had lost all those missing FDRs issued by the Bank between 2003 and 2009 in transit? How could someone keep losing FDRs of huge amounts in large numbers for years and how could a cooperative Bank keep cancelling/paying the underlying amounts of such FDRs without obtaining the duly discharges original FDRs. (c) Why has the co-operative Bank been kept on one or the other violating RBI directives/guidelines/instructions despite having pay monetary penalty in the past, deposit having been pointed out in the successive inspection reports and despite having given compliances and assurance to RBI for rectification and non-repetition of the violations?” 14. The petitioner-Bank in the petition and rejoinder refuted all the allegations. It is pleaded by the Bank that it had removed all the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent/Reserve Bank of India. It is further pleaded that income tax department have closed the case against the petitioner-Bank. CBI also did not found any illegality or irregularity. It had submitted the closure report before the Court and that was accepted by the Court. Subsequently the Registrar Co-operative Society had written two letters on 14.6.2013 and 5.10.2013 to the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India and requested the Bank to permit the petitioner-Bank to carry out Banking activities because no irregularities were found in its business during inspection in regard to Banking activities by the petitioner-Bank. 15. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to transaction of business by the petitioner are arbitrary and illegal. 15. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India in regard to transaction of business by the petitioner are arbitrary and illegal. The depositors cannot be restrained in regard to withdrawal of the amount which was deposited by them with the petitioner-Bank because there is no allegation that depositors have committed any fraud. The depositors have a right to withdraw the amount. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that respondent-Bank had issued proclamation in regard to certain FDRs and no body had submitted claim about FDRS. It is obligatory on the part of the respondent Bank to review the situation in view of the letters written by the Registrar Co-operative societies. The respondent-Bank has not conducted any review and in mechanical manner issued the orders that restrictions shall continue for further period of six months from time-to-time, which is arbitrary and illegal. 16. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/Bank has submitted that Bank has no objection to decide the controversy and Bank would consider the reply of the petitioner in regard to show cause notice with open mind and appropriate order shall be passed by the respondent-Bank. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that respondent-Bank issued the restrictions in regard to transactions in public interest. 17. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the respondent-Bank had issued show cause notice in regard to cancellation of licence to the petitioner-Bank. The respondent-Bank had also issued two orders imposing restrictions in regard to Banking activities of the petitioner-Bank. The restrictions were imposed when the CBI investigation was going on against the petitioner-Bank and income tax authorities also inquiring the matter. However, at present the CBI submitted a final report and closed the case. It is clear from the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Court in MJC No. 14/11. The CBI submitted final report before the Court with the following conclusion: “From the Investigation carried out no cognizable offence is made out against any person or society or the Bank hence, this closure report is submitted before this Hon'ble Court with the request to accept the same and to pass order for releasing the documents/articles to the persons/departments from where they were collected/seized.” 18. Thereafter the Court accepted final report and closed the case. Thereafter the Court accepted final report and closed the case. The income tax department has also closed the case against the petitioner-Bank. No irregularities were found by the income tax department also. The Reserve Bank of India treated the amount of certain FDRs as contingent liability. Those FDRs had matured in the year 2006/2007/2008. The recipients have also given indemnity bond and receipts stating that they had received full and final payment of amount mentioned in the FDRs. However, the Bank had treated the mount of FDRs as contingent liability and no person had put a claim against FDRs for the period of near about seven years. The Wikipedia defines contingent liability as under: “Contingent liabilities are liabilities that may be incurred by an entity depending on the outcome of an uncertain future event such as a Court case. These liabilities are not recorded in a company's and shown in the balance sheet when both probable and reasonably estimable as 'contingency' or 'worst case' financial outcome. A footnote to the balance sheet may describe the nature and extent of the contingent liabilities. The likelihood of loss is described as probable, reasonably possible, or remote. The ability to estimate a loss is described as know, reasonably estimable, or not reasonably estimable. It may or may not occurred. (i) Outstanding lawsuits. (ii) Claims against the company not acknowledged as debts. (iii) Legal liability. (iv) Liquidated damages. (v) Tort. (vi) Liquidated damages. (vii) Destruction by flood. (viii) Product warranty. (ix) Income Tax Disputed. (x) Sales Tax Disputed. (xi) Financial guarantees given.” 19. Chartered Accountants of India defines the contingent liability, which is as under: “A contingent liability is-- (a) a possible obligation that arises from past events and the existence of which will be confirmed only by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of the enterprise; or (b) a present obligation that arises from past events but is not recognized because-- (i) it is not probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation; or (ii) a reliable estimate of the amount of the obligation cannot be made.” 20. From the aforesaid definition, it is clear that Reserve Bank of India respondent has committed an error of law in holding that the amount of missing FDRs mentioned above is contingent liability against the petitioner-Bank. 21. From the aforesaid definition, it is clear that Reserve Bank of India respondent has committed an error of law in holding that the amount of missing FDRs mentioned above is contingent liability against the petitioner-Bank. 21. The constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1963 SC 687 has held that a right to arrear of pay and allowances constituted property. 22. Supreme Court in the matter of Dwarkadas Shrinivas of Bombay Vs. The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and Others, AIR 1954 SC 119 has held as under about the property: “Per S.R. Das, J--The Mills, machineries, stocks, etc. of the respondent company are 'property' within the meaning of Articles 19 and 31. A contract or agreement which a person may have with the company and which may be cancelled by the directors in exercise of powers under the Ordinance will undoubtedly be 'property' within the meaning of the two Articles.” “Per Bose, J--Property includes 'any interest' in any commercial or industrial undertaking'. It also includes any interest in any company owning' any interest in any commercial or industrial undertaking.” “Per Ghulam Hasan, J--The word property used in the Article must be construed in the widest sense as connoting a bundle of rights exercisable by the owner in respect thereof and embracing within its purview both corporeal and incorporeal rights. The word 'property' is not defined in the Constitution and there is no good reason to restrict its meaning.” 23. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court further held in the matter of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 564 as under in regard to property: “Under that entry 'property' can be compulsorily acquired. The word 'property' is not defined in the Constitution and there is no good reason to restrict its meaning.” 23. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court further held in the matter of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India (UOI), AIR 1970 SC 564 as under in regard to property: “Under that entry 'property' can be compulsorily acquired. In its normal connotation 'property' means the “highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend on another's Courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade marks, copyrights, patents and even rights in personam capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having a money value, I especially with reference to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being injured.” In view of aforesaid pronouncement, it is not necessary to mention other judgments of the Supreme Court on this point. 24. From the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court it is clear that the amount deposited by the depositors with the Bank comes under the right to hold the property and the depositors could not be deprived the aforesaid right without due procedure of law. 25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, etc. etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and another, etc. etc., AIR 1995 SC 142 , has held as under: “Each case must depend on its own facts. The word 'law' used in Art. 300A must be an Act of Parliament or of State Legislature, a rule or statutory order having force of law. The deprivation of the property shall be only by authority of law, be it an Act of Parliament or State Legislature, but not by executive flat or an order. Deprivation of property is by acquisition or requisition or taking possession of for a public purpose”. 26. The Registrar Co-operative Societies wrote letter dated 14.6.2013 and requested the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India to grant permission to the petitioner-Bank to continue Banking activities. The Registrar mentioned following reasons for the purpose of grant of permission to the petitioner society to continue Banking activities: 27. 26. The Registrar Co-operative Societies wrote letter dated 14.6.2013 and requested the Regional Director, Reserve Bank of India to grant permission to the petitioner-Bank to continue Banking activities. The Registrar mentioned following reasons for the purpose of grant of permission to the petitioner society to continue Banking activities: 27. Registrar, Societies further on 5.10.2013 wrote another letter and mentioned detail reasons in regard to grant of permission to the petitioner-Bank to carry out Banking activities. It is specifically mentioned by the Registrar that because of restrictions imposed by the respondent-Bank small depositors were facing the difficulties. The restrictions imposed on the petitioner society also affect the Banking activities of other Banks of the State Government. The income tax department and CBI closed the cases against the petitioner. The office bearers of the Bank President and Directors had given an undertaking that they would not participate in the election of the Bank in coming tan years. They had also agreed that any person of cooperative department be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of the Bank. 28. Imposing restriction on the depositors that they would not withdraw the amount in excess of Rs. 1,000/- would amount to deprivation of the legal right of the depositors guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Earlier the right of the property was fundamental right. However, by way of amendment in the Constitution of India Article 300-A has been inserted and the right to hold property has been guaranteed as legal right of the citizens. 29. It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court that persons cannot be deprived from their right to hold property without any reason. There is no reason why the depositors who had deposited the amount with the petitioner-Bank be not permitted to withdraw their amount. There is no allegation by the respondent-Bank that the amount which has been deposited by the depositors was not belonging to them or any depositor had committed fraud. Contrary to this, respondent-Bank in its reply admitted the fact that there was no irregularity in regard to accepting the deposits by the Bank. As per respondent-Bank irregularities and illegalities were committed by the petitioner-Bank in issuing FDRs and cancellation of FDRs. FDR receipts were issued and subsequently cancel led or missing and nobody has put forth his claim against these FDRs. As per respondent-Bank irregularities and illegalities were committed by the petitioner-Bank in issuing FDRs and cancellation of FDRs. FDR receipts were issued and subsequently cancel led or missing and nobody has put forth his claim against these FDRs. After a period of five years it has been treated as contingent liability or debts by the respondent. 30. Reserve Bank of India has completely ignored the provisions of Article 300A of Constitution of India while imposing restriction that depositors could not withdraw more than Rs. 1,000/-, it would mean deprivation of legal right of the persons guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India. The respondent-Bank has also not mentioned the fact that what illegalities have been committed by the depositors. The Bank has also not considered the letters dated 14.6.2013 and 5.10.2013 written by the Registrar, in which it has been held that financial position of Bank is sound and it be permitted to carry out the operations under the supervision of officers of the Registrar. The respondent-Bank has also not considered the fact that income tax department and CBI did not found any irregularity or illegality in regard to the business of the Bank and closed the cases against the petitioner-Bank. In this view of the matter, both the petitions filed by the petitioners are disposed of with the following directions: “(i) The petitioner shall file reply to the show cause notice issued by the respondent-Bank in regard to cancellation of licence and the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law in the light of observations made by this Court. (ii) The impugned orders dated 5.4.2010 and 6.4.2010 and subsequent extension orders passed by the respondent-Bank in regard to imposition of restrictions on the Banking activities of petitioner-Bank and the restriction that the depositors can not withdraw more than Rs. 1,000/- from their account are hereby quashed. (iii) Registrar Co-operative Societies is directed to appoint an officer not below the rank of Deputy Registrar, he shall supervise the work of the petitioner-Bank and petitioner-Bank shall carry out its Banking activities under his supervision. (iv) It is further clarified that depositors would be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by them with the Bank and if there is any dispute in this regard then the officer deputed by the Registrar shall decide the same.” No order as to costs.