← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/6573/2013dismissed

Vilas J. Parab And ORS v. Commissioner Co-Operation And Registrar, Co-Operative Societies And ORS

2017-10-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sarang Vijaykumar Kotwal,Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.M. Savant.2 pages

wp-6573-13-(16)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6573 OF 2013 Vilas J Parab & Ors ..Petitioners Vs.

Commissioner Co-operation & Registrar Co-operative Societies & Ors ..Respondents Mr. Mihir R. Govilkar i/b Mr. R. V. Govilkar for the Petitioners Ms N. M. Mehra AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 6 State Mr. Sampatrao Pawar for the Respondent No.5 CORAM :R. M. SAVANT, & SARANG V KOTWAL, JJ DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2017 P.C.

The above Petition seeks a direction against the Reserve Bank of India to the effect that it be directed to take cognizance of the complaints of the Petitioners and forthwith initiate an inquiry and to investigate into the affairs, management and administrations of the Raigad Sahakari Bank Ltd. i.e. the Respondent No.5 herein. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner No.1 Vilas Parab was the Vice Chairman of the Respondent No.5 till the year 2012 and the Petitioner No.2 was the Chairman till the year 2008. An affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5 to the above Petition which inter alia discloses the various inquiries which have been held by the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act as also the Reserve Bank of India. At page 19 to the Writ Paper Book is annexed a communication dated 11-7-2012 addressed by the Assistant General Manager, mmj

wp-6573-13-(16) Reserve Bank of India to Bhausaheb Angare and Ors informing them that the complaints made vide the letters dated 5-4-2010 and 15-3-2011 were looked into and considering the reply of the Bank, the matter was treated as closed. Hence it is not as if the Reserve Bank of India had not done anything in the matter though it is a regulatory authority under the Banking Regulation Act. We therefore do not deem it appropriate to issue any directions as sought by the Petitioner vide prayer clause (a). The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

[SARANG V KOTWAL, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J] mmj