Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 280 (AP)

B. Venkata Siva v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-03-09

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2022
JUDGMENT K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Rampilla Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5, apart from perusing the material placed on record. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : '..declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings for implementation of RBI Master Circular on board of Directors-UCB's to the 5th respondent in complying the master circular issued by the fourth respondent as arbitrary illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by the 6th respondent and consequently further direct the 5th respondent to strictly abide the Role of Directors-Do's and Don't's of director of a management committee and eligibility conditions contemplated under Master Circular issued by RBI on board of Directors-UCB's with complying to the aPCS act, 1964 & rules and pass such other ...' 3. It is the case of the petitioners that 5th respondent-urban bank functions under the supervision and control of 6th respondent-Reserve Bank of India (RBI). 6th respondent-Reserve Bank of India issued Master Circulars dated 02.07.2007 01.07.2014, and they inter alia deal with Role of Directors -Dos and Don'ts for guidance of the Directors of Urban Banks. There are instances of Urban Banks not following the Master Circulars issued by 6th respondent-RBI, which have been pointed in enquiry reports, and 6th respondent-RBI imposed penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs on 5th respondent-urban bank on 22.09.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that Management Committee of all the urban banks should follow the Master Circular of RBI, but 5th respondent-urban bank had not followed and is violating it every year, and that respondents 3 and 5 have not conducted any exercise in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Master Circular on Board of Directors-UCB's of RBI, and though several members of the urban bank gave representations, the same have not been replied nor considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Respondents 3 and 5 filed separate counter affidavits denying the averments in the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that they are strictly and regularly following every RBI Master Circular and implementing the same, and that the petitioners have not specifically pointed out a breach. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Respondents 3 and 5 filed separate counter affidavits denying the averments in the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that they are strictly and regularly following every RBI Master Circular and implementing the same, and that the petitioners have not specifically pointed out a breach. Paragraph No.5 (b) of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 is extracted hereunder: 'It is further humbly submitted that the three men official PIC strictly obeying the followed the Do's and Don't and also the bylaws of the Bank and Cooperative act, 1964 and orders of Cooperative Department authorities, further each and every circulars of Reserve Bank of India Policies laid down by Government and Reserve Bank of India i.e. 6th respondent has been observed and strictly implemented by the three men official PIC i.e. 3rd Respondent as well as the 5th Respondent herein.' 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and in view of the specific stand taken by the respondents 3 and 5 in their respective counter affidavits that they are strictly following the Master Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition recording the said statement in the counter affidavits and directing the respondents to strictly adhere to the Circulars being issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition. 7. as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.