JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to direct the 2nd respondent-Governor, Reserve Bank of India, to take action against the 5th respondent under Section 45-1A(6)(ii) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 for violating the directions issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent is a non-banking Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner filed a complaint before respondents 2 and 3 alleging that she deposited Rs. 65,898/- in the Kodungallur Branch of the 5th respondent, but instead of giving deposit receipt in the name of the 5th respondent, they gave receipt in the name of a non-existent entity. The petitioner filed a police complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kodungallur and accordingly a crime was registered against the 6th respondent and others as Crime No. 948/2011. 3. The petitioner further states that in response to the complaint filed by her, the officials of the Reserve Bank of India visited the Branches and Head Office of the 5th respondent-Company and found that allegations made by the petitioner are true. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent informed the public that the 5th respondent being a non-deposit taking non-banking financial company with effect from 22.03.2011, acceptance of deposits from the public is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Certificate of Registration currently held by it. 4. Though the said Ext.P1 public notice was issued by the 2nd respondent, no action was taken in accordance with Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act, contends the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 33355/2011 praying for a direction to the 2nd and the 3rd respondents to entrust the investigation to a senior Police Officer. This Court, by an order dated 15.12.2011, directed investigation in the crime to be conducted by the Dy. S.P. Thrissur. The 2nd respondent was directed to consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner. Exhibit P2 is the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 33355/2011. 5. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent was not willing to take any action pursuant to Ext.P2 direction of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Contempt of Court Case. The said Contempt of Court Case was closed as per Ext.P3 judgment. In the meanwhile, Crime No. 948/2011 was filed in Kodungallur Police Station. 5. The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent was not willing to take any action pursuant to Ext.P2 direction of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Contempt of Court Case. The said Contempt of Court Case was closed as per Ext.P3 judgment. In the meanwhile, Crime No. 948/2011 was filed in Kodungallur Police Station. The petitioner settled the criminal case on an understanding that she can pursue remedies in the civil court. According to the petitioner, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are duty bound to control the activities of the 5th respondent, under Chapter III B of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The omission of respondents 2 and 3 in not acting upon the complaint filed by the petitioner, is highly arbitrary and unsustainable. The 2nd respondent is therefore compellable to take action against the 5th respondent under Section 45-1A(6)(ii) of the RBI Act for violating the directions issued by the 2nd respondent. 6. Respondents 5 and 6 resisted the application filing counter affidavit. Respondents 5 and 6 stated that the petitioner was a party to Crl. M.C. No. 764/2014 filed by the 6th respondent. In the said Crl. M.C. a settlement was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner due to some misunderstanding. On the basis of the said submission, the Crl. M.C. was closed by this Court. The RBI issued Ext.P4 show-cause notice and the 5th respondent gave a detailed explanation as per Ext.R6(c). On receipt of the explanation, the RBI suggested certain corrective actions. The directions of the RBI were complied with and a compliance report was also submitted to the RBI. The RBI informed respondents 5 and 6 that the explanation given by them are largely acceptable. 7. Respondents 2 and 3 stated that proceedings were taken against respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 gave reply in the matter. The compliance report submitted by respondents 5 and 6 was largely acceptable to the RBI. Therefore, it was decided not to pursue the matter further. The 5th respondent was given necessary advice. The petitioner cannot insist the RBI to take any particular type of action like cancellation of registration, against the company. The RBI considered the matter keeping in view the public interest and the interest of the depositors. Decisions are taken as deemed appropriate by the RBI. The 5th respondent was given necessary advice. The petitioner cannot insist the RBI to take any particular type of action like cancellation of registration, against the company. The RBI considered the matter keeping in view the public interest and the interest of the depositors. Decisions are taken as deemed appropriate by the RBI. The RBI has not colluded with respondents 5 and 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and it is only to be rejected, contended respondents 2 and 3. 8. Senior Advocate Sri. K. Ramkumar assisted by the counsel for the petitioner, argued that when a judicial forum gives direction to respondents 2 and 3, they are bound to comply with such directions. The 2nd respondent has observed in Ext.P1 that the 5th respondent is conducting its activities illegally. Therefore, invoking Section 45-IA of the RBI Act, the 2nd respondent is bound to cancel the registration given to the 5th respondent. In Ext.P4, respondents 2 and 3 categorically found that the activities of respondents 5 and 6 are detrimental to public interest. However, no punitive action has been taken against respondents 5 and 6 holding that the explanation given by them are generally satisfactory. The RBI cannot trivialise the issue when public interest is involved. The RBI has no option but to cancel the registration given to the 5th respondent as their activities are found to be detrimental to the public interest. 9. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that Ext.P5 has been issued not by the Governor of the RBI as directed by this Court. The powers of the RBI are coupled with a duty to protect public interest. When there is a duty, the same can be enforced by a writ of mandamus, especially when failure to perform such duty affects public interest, contended the learned Senior Counsel. 10. Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6, stated that pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, the RBI issued notice to respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 gave reply to the notice. Whatever amounts collected by respondents 5 and 6, which were found to be irregular, were repaid. These facts were brought to the notice of the RBI and the RBI was convinced the bona fides of respondents 5 and 6. Accordingly, no further action was taken against respondents 5 and 6. Respondents 5 and 6 gave reply to the notice. Whatever amounts collected by respondents 5 and 6, which were found to be irregular, were repaid. These facts were brought to the notice of the RBI and the RBI was convinced the bona fides of respondents 5 and 6. Accordingly, no further action was taken against respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner has settled her issues with respondents 5 and 6 in Crl. M.C. No. 764/2014. The petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to re-agitate the issue. 11. Advocate Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, pointed out that the RBI has been monitoring the complaint filed by the petitioner and the corrective actions taken by respondents 5 and 6. The RBI had given definite directions to respondents 5 and 6 which were duly complied with. Deposits were not accepted thereafter. The 5th respondent has separated its premises from the office of other entities. The 5th respondent is submitting quarterly returns promptly. The 5th respondent has repaid Rs. 2,00,00,000/- so far. There is no complaint of illegal deposit mobilisation pending against respondents 5 and 6 now. Therefore, no further action is warranted against respondents 5 and 6. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is without any bona fides and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the learned Senior Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 6. 13. The prime argument of the petitioner is that Section 45-IA(6) requires the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to cancel the Certificate of Registration granted to a Non-banking Financial Company, if such Company had failed to comply with any condition subject to which the Certificate of Registration had been issued to it. The 5th respondent violated the conditions contained in the Certificate of Registration and accepted deposits from the public illegally. This is a grave illegality which warrants punitive action against the 5th respondent under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 14. According to the petitioner, in this case, after finding that there is violation of statutory provisions, the Reserve Bank of India has failed to perform a statutory duty vested in it. This is a grave illegality which warrants punitive action against the 5th respondent under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. 14. According to the petitioner, in this case, after finding that there is violation of statutory provisions, the Reserve Bank of India has failed to perform a statutory duty vested in it. When power is given to the Reserve Bank of India coupled with a duty to act against entities violating the provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and Rules and conditions stipulated in Certificates Registration, the Reserve Bank of India has no other go than to proceed and punish the violator. The words “may” appearing in sub-section 6 of Section 45-IA should be read as “shall” in such circumstances. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgments in Deewan Singh and Others vs. Rajendra P.D. Ardevi and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 528 , D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2015) 8 SCC 744 and S.M. Asif vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj, (2015) 9 SCC 287 , to urge the point. The learned counsel further argued that in view of the judgment in George Elamplakkadu vs. Mathew, 2020 (5) KLT 504 , the Reserve Bank of India has no option than to punish the 5th respondent by cancelling its Certificate of Registration, for the admitted violations of the conditions contained therein. 15. Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 deals with requirement of registration and net owned fund. The Section also deals with consideration of applications for registration and grant of Certificates of Registration. Sub-Section 6 of Section 45-IA which deals with cancellation of Certificate of Registration reads as follows:- “45-IA. Requirement of registration and net owned fund: xxx xxx xxx (6) The Bank may cancel a certificate of registration granted to a non-banking financial company under this section if such company: (i) ceases to carry on the business of a non-banking financial institution in India. (ii) has failed to comply with any condition subject to which the certificate of registration had been issued to it. (iii) at any time fails to fulfil any of the conditions referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (4). (iv) fails: (a) to comply with any direction issued by the Bank under the provisions of this chapter. (ii) has failed to comply with any condition subject to which the certificate of registration had been issued to it. (iii) at any time fails to fulfil any of the conditions referred to in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (4). (iv) fails: (a) to comply with any direction issued by the Bank under the provisions of this chapter. (b) to maintain accounts in accordance with the requirements of any law or any direction or order issued by the Bank under the provisions of this Chapter. (c) to submit or offer for inspection its books of account and other relevant documents when so demanded by an inspecting authority of the Bank. (v) has been prohibited from accepting deposit by an order made by the Bank under the provisions of this Chapter and such order has been in force for a period of not less than three months: Provided that before cancelling a certificate of registration on the ground that the non-banking financial company has failed to comply with the provisions of clause (ii) or has failed to fulfil any of the conditions referred to in clause (iii) the Bank, unless it is of the opinion that the delay in cancelling the certificate of registration shall be prejudicial to public interest or the interest of the depositors or the non-banking financial company, shall give an opportunity to such company on such terms as the Bank may specify for taking necessary steps to comply with such provision or fulfillment of such condition: Provided further that before making any order of cancellation of certificate of registration, such company shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” The first proviso to the sub-section (6) would indicate that unless the Reserve Bank of India is of the opinion that the delay in cancelling Certificate of Registration for noncompliance of the conditions therein, the Reserve Bank of India shall give an opportunity to such Company on such terms as the Bank may specify for taking necessary steps to comply with such provision or fulfillment of such condition. 16. The second proviso to sub-section (6) would show that a non-banking financial company is entitled to receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing before its Certificate of Registration is cancelled. Both the aforesaid provisos in Section 45-IA would only show that the RBI has to exercise its discretion in the matter of cancellation of Certificate of Registration. 16. The second proviso to sub-section (6) would show that a non-banking financial company is entitled to receive a reasonable opportunity of hearing before its Certificate of Registration is cancelled. Both the aforesaid provisos in Section 45-IA would only show that the RBI has to exercise its discretion in the matter of cancellation of Certificate of Registration. In appropriate cases, the RBI can give opportunity to non-banking financial companies who have violated the conditions of registration, to take steps to comply with such provisions or fulfill such conditions. 17. When Section 45-IA(6) itself would show that the power granted to the RBI for cancellation of Registration is discretionary, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the RBI is bound to cancel the Registration of a non-banking financial company whenever there is a failure to comply with any condition subject to which the Certificate of Registration had been issued to it. 18. In the case on hand, it is evident that the RBI has been monitoring the complaint filed by the petitioner and the RBI had suggested corrective action to be taken by respondents 5 and 6. The RBI was convinced that respondents 5 and 6 have complied with such directions and there is no complaint pending against respondents 5 and 6 from any quarter. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the petitioner that the RBI is bound to cancel the Certificate of Registration of the 5th respondent. 19. Further argument of the petitioner is that this Court in W.P. (C) No. 33355/2011 directed the 2nd respondent- Governor, Reserve Bank of India to consider Ext.P5 representation, but the representation was considered and disposed of by a subordinate officer in violation of the peremptory direction given by this Court to the 2nd respondent. This Court is not inclined to consider the said claim. This Court in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P. (C) No. 33355/2011 directed that the 15th respondent-Governor, RBI, therein will consider Ext.P5 representation sent by the petitioner and will take appropriate action on the same. Alleging non-compliance of Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner had filed Contempt Case No. 1725/2012. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the Contempt Case held that the said contention/allegation of the petitioner is bereft of any merit. Alleging non-compliance of Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner had filed Contempt Case No. 1725/2012. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after hearing the Contempt Case held that the said contention/allegation of the petitioner is bereft of any merit. In view of the findings of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment in Contempt Case No. 1725/2012, the petitioner cannot agitate the same issue again in this writ petition. 20. For the afore reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.