JUDGMENT : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. In exercise of the powers under Section 22(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the BR Act), Reserve Bank of India vide order dated 30.12.2011 cancelled the Petitioner's licence to conduct banking business and issued mandate to stop “business of banking”, within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the BR Act with immediate effect. This order was carried in appeal under Section 22(5) of the said Act before the Appellate Authority, i.e., Ministry of Finance (Department of Financial Services) Government of India. Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.4.2013 upheld the order of the Reserve Bank of India and as such, the appeal was dismissed. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed in Appeal as aforesaid, this Writ Petition is preferred by the Bank through its Chairman Mr. Kolur and by the Cooperative Bank Employees' Union under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Initially, Petition was filed against the authorities under the said Act and Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Later in terms of the order dated 16.1.2014, directors and the borrowers, who allegedly siphoned the funds of the bank were impleaded as respondents nos.10 to 101. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation has been impleaded as Respondent No.102 in terms of the order dated 21.2.2014. 4. On 3.10.2011 Chief Manager of the bank lodged a complaint with the Andheri Police Station, Mumbai and reported that financial position of the bank has worsened since many CC loan accounts of the huge amount were classified as NPA. He reported particulars of several irregularities committed while sanctioning loan. He further reported that Branch Manager Mr. Kadoli and Board of Directors in collusion with each other violated regulations of CC Limit and, misused their powers and disbursed loans without following rules. He reported 59 loan holders of Andheri Branch, Branch Manager Mr. Kadoli and officers of the Board in collusion with each other disbursed the loan of Rs.575020936 by forging the documents which resulted in huge loss to the bank. He reported act of cheating and misappropriation of funds by the Branch Manager and Members of Board. It resulted in registration of C.R. No.92 of 2011 under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. He reported act of cheating and misappropriation of funds by the Branch Manager and Members of Board. It resulted in registration of C.R. No.92 of 2011 under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. Commissioner for Cooperation, vide order dated 3.1.2012, appointed Board of Liquidators for winding up of affairs of the Petitioner-Bank, under Section 110A (ii) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and directed Board of Liquidators to submit quarterly progress report to him, under the intimation to Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation. 6. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner-Bank, facts relevant for the present case to be stated are as under : (i) On 22.8.1973, Petitioner-Bank was registered as Cooperative Society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'MCS Act, 1960'); (ii) On 26.3.1974, a licence was granted under Section 22 of the BR Act; (iii) On 31.3.2006, 31.3.2007 and 31.3.2008, the Reserve Bank of India conducted statutory inspection of the bank with reference to its financial position. Pursuant to the said statutory inspection, Bank was advised not to extend area of operation; not to open new branches, not to declare dividend and also advised to refrain from paying interest, etc. Bank was advised to set up recovery efforts and maintain CD ratio at sustainable levels. Bank was also advised to explore the possibility of merger with sound bank. (iv) Statutory audit with respect to financial position of the said bank as on 31.3.2009 was also conducted and was advised on 29.10.2009 not to resort to borrowings or allow premature withdrawals of deposit; (v) On 8.2.2010 Enquiry Officer under Section 83 of the MCS Act reported that the bank had disbursed loans having insufficient mortgage security and lack of repayment capacity of borrowers (76 Loan Account) with total outstanding of 6253.44 Lakhs. (vi) Statutory inspection with respect to its financial position on 31.3.2010 revealed that; (a) Net worth stood at (-) 3383.32 Lakhs and asset Capital Adequacy Ration (CAR) stood at (-) 53.2% against regulatory requirement of 9%. (b) Erosion in deposit was to the extent of 15.9%. (c) Gross and net NPAs formed 69.8% and 58.4% of gross and net advances respectively. (d) Inspection report was forwarded to the Bank for rectification of deficiencies; however, RBI found compliance report was not satisfactory. (b) Erosion in deposit was to the extent of 15.9%. (c) Gross and net NPAs formed 69.8% and 58.4% of gross and net advances respectively. (d) Inspection report was forwarded to the Bank for rectification of deficiencies; however, RBI found compliance report was not satisfactory. (e) Assets net worth as on 31.3.2011 was found at Rs.(-) 5231.01 Lakhs as against Rs.(-) 3383.32 Lakhs as on 31.3.2010 which indicate further deterioration in already precarious financial position of the bank. (f) Recovery of NPA was not satisfactory; (g) Quality of management was not satisfactory. (h) Assets losses increased from 3180.78 Lakhs during 2009-10 to 3659.22 Lakhs during 2010-11. 7. In view of precarious financial position as revealed by Inspection report with reference to financial position as on 31.3.2011 and inability of the management to bring about improvement, Bank was placed under all inclusive directions under Section 35A of the BR Act with effect from close of business on 3.8.1011. 8. Reserve Bank noted the following deficiencies in the functioning of bank ; (a) Financial Position of the bank was precarious and there is no scope for revival. (emphasis supplied) (b) Bank was not in a position to pay present and past depositors in full, as and when their claims accrue. (c) Affairs of the bank were being conducted in the manner detrimental to its interest-depositers. (d) Public interest would be adversely affected if the bank is allowed to carry on its banking business any further (e) Bank did not comply provisions of Section 11(1), 22(3)(a) and 22(3)(b) of the BR Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid serious deficiencies and irregularities and deteriorating financial position of the said bank and upon the recommendations of the Task Force on Cooperative Urban Banks (TAFCUB) showcause notice was issued to the bank requiring it to show cause as to why licence granted to it under Section 22 of the BR Act to carry on banking business should not be cancelled and bank should not be taken to liquidation. Thus, showcause notice dated 17.8.2011 was issued. Bank replied said showcause notice followed by additional replies/submissions. RBI after examining replies found the same was not satisfactory and thus reached a conclusion that allowing the bank to carry on business any further would be detrimental to the interest of the present and future depositors and as such, issued order dated 30.12.2011 for cancellation of banking licence. 10. Bank replied said showcause notice followed by additional replies/submissions. RBI after examining replies found the same was not satisfactory and thus reached a conclusion that allowing the bank to carry on business any further would be detrimental to the interest of the present and future depositors and as such, issued order dated 30.12.2011 for cancellation of banking licence. 10. The order dated 30.12.2011 was challenged in appeal before the Ministry of Finance but it met with same fate. 11. Heard Mr. Sasi learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Dhond the learned Senior Counsel for the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. Hatle, Mr. Patil, Mr. Mansuri and Mr. Patki, Additional Government Pleader for the other Respondents. 12. Mr. Sasi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that, steps taken by the RBI for canceling licencee were harsh and in breach of provisions of Section 22 of the said Act. He would submit that new committee of the Bank had taken charge on 31.3.2011 and immediately thereafter on 17.8.2011 showcause notice was issued under Section 22 of the BR Act. He would submit that issuance of showcause notice immediately after the new committee resumed the office is not a coincident. He would suggest, it was motivated action at the behest of some persons who harboured grudge against the new Committee. He would submit that, due procedure has not been followed while cancelling the licence of the Petitioner-Bank. The learned counsel has brought to our notice, provisions of Section 35(1A)(a) read with Subsection (3) and would contend that procedure contemplated under Subsection (3) was not followed inasmuch as person who has scrutinised the affairs of the banking company and its books and accounts has not examined on oath directors or other officers of the Bank in relation to its business. He would submit, it was gross irregularity. He would submit that new managing committee of the bank cannot be penalised for alleged illegalities of the earlier managing committee without affording opportunity to them. He would submit that it was only in March, 2011, new committee took over the office of the Bank and, therefore, Respondent-Authorities under the B.R.Act ought to have given opportunity to the newly elected body. He has drawn our attention to the affidavit dated 7.12.2017 filed by Mr. Shahaji M. Patil Chairman Board of Liquidator and would submit, bank has held sufficient Assets to absorb the liabilities. He has drawn our attention to the affidavit dated 7.12.2017 filed by Mr. Shahaji M. Patil Chairman Board of Liquidator and would submit, bank has held sufficient Assets to absorb the liabilities. He made endeavour to submit facts and figures reflected in the affidavit of Board of Liquidator which according to him clearly indicates positive sign of revival of the financial position of the bank. In other words, he would contend that RBI failed to consider that the Bank's financial position is retrievable as its asset position is clearly on the higher side as against deposits to be repaid and that mere inability of the bank to immediately repay the deposits is not ground for cancellation of licence. 13. As against it, Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the RBI has taken us through the order dated 30.12.2011 and more particularly the paragraph 2 thereof. He has brought to our attention comparative table reproduced in the said order showing new worth of the bank as on 31.3.2009, 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011. He has pointed out that in 2009 net worth was (-) 2551.63 Lakhs whereas as on 31.3.2011 it declined to (-) 5231.11 Lakhs. He has also pointed out that CRAR ratio; which was (-) 35.4% as on 31.3.2009 which further declined to (-) 139.60 in March, 2011. He has also pointed out that net NPA was 13% as on March, 2009 which escalated to 33% in 2011. Besides, he has drawn our attention to provisions of Section 22(3)(a) which reads as under; “A bank is or will be in a position to pay its present or future depositors in full as their claims accrue (emphasis supplied).” Mr. Dhond pointed out that deposit erosion was 33% as on March, 2011 which indicates petitioner-bank was not in a position to settle dues of its present depositors in full as and when their claims would accrue. 14. Mr. Dhond, Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, upon objective assessment of the statutory inspection reports, under Section 35, to its financial position as on 31.3.2010 and reports of earlier financial years, Respondents concluded that bank's operations were being carried on in the manner that was detrimental to the interest of the depositors and in violation of Section 22(3) (b) of the Act. Besides he has brought to our notice inspection reports and the findings recorded in the order dated 30.12.2011. Besides he has brought to our notice inspection reports and the findings recorded in the order dated 30.12.2011. He would submit that, findings as found in paragraph 12 of the order dated 30.12.2011 are findings of facts recorded by the experts. He would submit that such findings in paragraph 12 are based on facts and figures as revealed upon inspection of books of the Petitioner-Bank. Mr. Dhond would also submit, Petitioners have not disputed facts, figures and finding recorded in the various inspection reports. He would submit that the RBI has concluded that financial position of the bank is precarious and there is no scope for revival. He has also drawn our attention to the conclusion, that “public interest would adversely affect if the bank is allowed to carry on its banking business in future”. Mr. Dhond has also taken us through the order dated 23.4.2011 passed in Appeal by the Ministry of Finance. 15. Mr. Dhond has also pointed out directives issued on 2.8.2011 by the RBI under Section 35A of the BR Act. Mr. Dhond has vehemently submitted that in spite of directives issued by the RBI to the bank after carrying out inspection of its affairs, there was no improvement and having found management had not displayed sufficient seriousness in dealing with the staff responsible for the irregularities and having found board of directors were ineffective and are responsible for deterioration of financial position, authorities of RBI after receiving the recommendations of the Task Force on Cooperative Urban Banks (TAFCUB) issued a showcause notice to bank and after following due procedure cancelled the licence. He would submit that the order is based on the objective-assessment of facts revealed in inspection carried out by the authorities for the period 2009, 2010 and 2011. 16. We have gone through the impugned orders and material placed on record by the Petitioners and Respondents. It reveals; (1) Decision of the RBI to cancel the banking licence of the Bank was taken in the interest of the depositors. (2) The RBI after satisfaction arrived at upon series of inspections and the reports that the affairs of the bank have been conducted in the manner detrimental to its present and future depositors and that public interest would adversely affect if the bank is allowed to carry on its banking business, cancelled the banking licence of the bank. (2) The RBI after satisfaction arrived at upon series of inspections and the reports that the affairs of the bank have been conducted in the manner detrimental to its present and future depositors and that public interest would adversely affect if the bank is allowed to carry on its banking business, cancelled the banking licence of the bank. (3) That before taking this step, the RBI had given opportunities to the bank to rectify defects revealed in the inspection report of its affairs. (4) As the Bank failed to rectify defects and improve its functioning, the RBI had no option but to cancel the licence. 17. Having heard the Bank and the Respondent authorities, we are required to answer following points; (i) Whether order of cancellation of Petitioner's bank licence by the RBI is legal and valid ? (ii) Whether future ability of the bank to pay its creditors but its inability to pay them at the given time would be a consideration to interfere with the administrative order cancelling banking licence of the Petitioner ? (iii) Whether Petitioners have made out a case for review of administrative order of cancelling banking licence ? 18. The material on record discloses that the officials of the RBI made a periodical statutory inspection of the bank in exercise of its powers under Section 35 of 1949 Act for the year ending March, 2009, 2010 and 2011. Material on record shows that with reference to financial position of the bank as on March 2006, 2007 and 2008, supervisory action was initiated vide letters dated 18.6.2007, 17.3.2008 and 3.7.2009 and the bank was advised not to extend the area of operation, open branches, declare dividend and not to resort to borrowings and premature withdrawals. Authorities of the RBI found with reference to the Bank's financial position as on 31.3.2006 that vehicle loans granted in 145 cases, the lien endorsement obtained from RTO was found not to be genuine. Besides, enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act revealed fraud and misappropriation of funds at Kandivali Branch and irregularities in loans sanctioned at Andheri Branch. In the order dated 30.12.2011, such deficiencies and irregularities were noted by the officials of the RBI. 19. Besides, enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act revealed fraud and misappropriation of funds at Kandivali Branch and irregularities in loans sanctioned at Andheri Branch. In the order dated 30.12.2011, such deficiencies and irregularities were noted by the officials of the RBI. 19. In the order dated 30.12.2011, cancelling the banking licence, officials of RBI have tabulated financial position as under: Sr No. Parameters (as assessed) Inspection as on March 31, 2009 March 31, 2010 March 31, 2011 1 Net worth (-)2551.63 (-)3383.32 (-)5231. 2 CRAR (-)35.4% (-)53.2% (-)139.6 3 Deposit Erosion 13.0% 15.9% 33.4 4 Net profit/loss(-) (-)3350.95 (-)3180.78 (-)3659.3 5 Gross NPA(%) 7608.78 (57.6%) 8149.80(69.8%) 7633.36(79.1%) 6 Net NPA (%) 4488.08 (44.4%) 4952.29(58.4%) 3449.51(63.0%) 20. It may be stated that the above facts and figures were not disputed by the Petitioners. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the above extracted deficiencies amply indicate that the affairs of the bank were conducted in the manner deterimental to the interests of the depositors. 21. Mr. Sasi the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that affidavit-in-reply filed by liquidator clearly indicates that the bank is having mortgaged properties to ensure due recovery of all loans and the assets position of the bank being on higher as against deposits to be repaid, this Court may interfere with the order impugned. He would further contend that merely because bank was not in a position to immediately repay its depositors cannot be a ground for cacelling the licence. Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Pattem Surya Prakash Rao and Ors. while dealing with the identical contention has held in paragraph 72 as under: “72 Shri Vedula Srinivas contended that since the Bank is having mortgaged properties to ensure due recovery of all the loans and that the asset position of the bank is clearly on a higher side as against the deposits to be repaid, there is no justification in cancelling the bank's licence, merely because it is not in a position to immediately repay the deposits. We do not feel persuaded to accept this contention, because it is in the teeth of the above reproduced observations of the Supreme Court in para-22 of the Judgment in Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel MANU/SC/0057/1962 that interest of the depositors must be paramount and the action for winding up of a bank is dictated not from any abstract consideration of a long range view of future ability of the Bank to pay its creditors but its ability to pay them at any given time. One of the main grounds for cancellation of the bank's licence as reflected in the show cause notice is that the bank is not in a position to pay its present and future deposits and the financial position of the bank leave little scope for its revival. That the Bank's inability to repay the deposit amounts to its creditors is not disputed either in the pleadings of the Depositors Association or of Sri Pattern Suryaprakash Rau who filed two different writ petitions or by the learned Counsel appearing for them.” That even otherwise herein the Bank's financial position was deteriorating since six years before the date on which banking licence was cancelled as evident from the observations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 30.12.2011. In the case in hand, the RBI found large deterioration in the profitability of the bank and the NPA arose from 44% to 63% within the span of two years. Be that as it may, as held by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Reserve Bank of India (Supra) “...likely future ability of the bank to pay its creditors cannot be said to be consideration for interfering with the order impugned in this Petition”. We, therefore, reject this contention also. 22. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued the procedure in terms of Section 35(3) of the B.R.Act has not been followed, however, he could not point out, how noncompliance of said provision has caused prejudice to the Bank. In fact, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel has not disputed facts and figures as reproduced in the order dated 30.12.2011 that of net worth; deposit erosion, net profit, gross NPA, net NPA, CRAR, net NPA of the bank. In fact, during the course of the arguments, the learned counsel has not disputed facts and figures as reproduced in the order dated 30.12.2011 that of net worth; deposit erosion, net profit, gross NPA, net NPA, CRAR, net NPA of the bank. Material on record indicates that before cancelling licence, ample opportunities were given by issuing directives under Section 35A of the Act and also by supervisory actions vide letters dated 18.6.2007, 17.3.2008 and 3.7.2009. Besides, there was a report under Section 83 of the MCS Act pointing out gross irregularities and illegalities committed by the then Board of Directors. It cannot be overlooked that crime has been registered against the branch manager, managing committee of the bank and account holders with whom bank officials colluded and siphoned huge funds of the bank. Offence is thus, registered for causing/misappropriating the bank's property. Thus, upon taking the survey of the material evidence on record brought by the officials of the RBI, officers of the Cooperation Department and in the course of the investigation of the crime, we are of the view that the conclusions/findings recorded by the RBI officials in paragraph 12 of its order dated 30.12.2011 cannot be interfered with. We, therefore, hold that the order dated 30.12.2011 passed under Section 22(4) of the BR Act, 1949 is based on the report of the expert bodies and it cannot be faulted with on any count. 23. On the scope of Court's interference with the decision of the expert bodies, it is settled law that “Courts 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 matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.” 24. Thus, we are of the opinion that authorities have taken into account relevant factors and on objective assessment of functioning of the bank cancelled the licence. We do not find any illegality, irrationality or procedural improbability in the decision making process. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts.” 24. Thus, we are of the opinion that authorities have taken into account relevant factors and on objective assessment of functioning of the bank cancelled the licence. We do not find any illegality, irrationality or procedural improbability in the decision making process. More so, the order being administrative in nature while exercising power of the judicial review is only concerned with the decision making process and not merits of the decision since the orders impugned herein are based on the facts and figures, financial position and functioning of the affairs of the bank. No procedural irregularity or impropriety has been pointed out by the Petitioners in the decision making process which culminated into cancellation of banking licence. In our view, this decision is taken in the best interest of depositors and, therefore, answer the points accordingly. 25. Before concluding the judgment, it is to be noted that during the pendency of this Petition, fifteen account holders/shareholders of the Petitioner-Bank have filed Chamber Summons No.79 of 2014 seeking intervention in the Petition and for impleading themselves as party respondents. It appears from the affidavit-in-support filed by the applicants that they were of the view that RBI ought not to have cancelled the licence, instead directed the bank officials and the authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to expedite the recovery proceedings. The applicants are of the view that cancellation of the banking licence was not a solution to overcome situation and RBI ought to have take some steps to merge the Petitioner-Bank with some other cooperative bank. Applicants have also made grievance about the functioning of board of liquidators. They have averred in paragraph 32 that value of the immovable property being more than 200 crores, revival of the bank is possible. They urged that committee consisting of representatives of the shareholders/depositors of the Petitioners and of the Government be constituted to look after affairs of the bank. Though the Chamber Summons was filed in March, 2014, no steps were taken by the applicants therein to pursue the same. None appeared when the petition was heard finally. In view of this, we dismiss the Chamber Summons being rendered infructuous. 26. Though the Chamber Summons was filed in March, 2014, no steps were taken by the applicants therein to pursue the same. None appeared when the petition was heard finally. In view of this, we dismiss the Chamber Summons being rendered infructuous. 26. Yet, another Application/Notice of Motion No.180 of 2017 is filed by the Petitioners seeking a relief/direction to constitute a committee of experts to assist the investigating officers, ACP, Economic Offence Wing and also authorised officer under Section 80 of the MCS Act. Though this Notice of Motion was filed on 8.5.2016, it was not pursued, it is rendered infructuous. 27. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation has filed Notice of Motion No.110 of 2015 seeking directions to the liquidator to file statement of accounts as per the provisions of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. The learned counsel appearing for the Credit Guarantee Corporation has not pressed this Notice of Motion. That as such, Notice of Motion No.110 of 2015 stands disposed of. 28. It may be stated that the board of liquidators appointed under the provisions of MCS Act has filed affidavit of one Shahaji M. Patil, Chairman of the Board of Liquidator. Vide affidavit dated 6.12.2017, he has placed on record facts and figures and status of liquidation process as on 30.09.2017. It appears from the affidavit that board of liquidators is functional and taking effective steps to complete the liquidation process. However, there being voluminous documents and multiple proceedings, it appears inquiry is not likely to conclude in near future. Be that as it may, this Court has not examined whether the board of liquidators is functioning effectively for concluding the liquidation process. It appears from the applicants in Chamber Summons No.79 of 2014 that some of the members/account holders of the Petitioner-Bank have expressed their concern about the functioning of the board of liquidators. Though we have dismissed the Chamber Summons No.79 of 2014 being rendered infructuous, we keep all the contentions of the Applicants in the said Chamber Summons open so as to enable them to make the grievance, if any, against board of liquidators concerning liquidation proceedings in appropriate proceedings as they deem fit and proper. Though we have dismissed the Chamber Summons No.79 of 2014 being rendered infructuous, we keep all the contentions of the Applicants in the said Chamber Summons open so as to enable them to make the grievance, if any, against board of liquidators concerning liquidation proceedings in appropriate proceedings as they deem fit and proper. We further make it clear that all issues concerning liquidation proceedings (not being a subject matter of petition) are kept open to challenge by persons interested and/or who is aggrieved or likely to be aggrieved by the orders passed and actions taken by the Board of Liquidators in the liquidation proceedings of the Petitioner-Bank. That for the reasons stated hereinabove, Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.