Vinayak Dronagiri Goswami v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 WRIT PETITION NO.9978 OF 2022 VINAYAK DRONAGIRI GOSWAMI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS Ms.P.S.Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.R.Kale, Govt.Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr.S.V.Adwant, Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND ARUN R. PEDNEKER, JJ.) DATE : OCTOBER 06, 2022 PER COURT :
1.
The petitioner has put forth prayer clause '
A' and 'B' as under :- "A. To direct the respondent No.2 to appoint an Administrator or Committee of Administrators as per the provisions of Section 36AAA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 to manage the affairs of the Parner Taluka Sainik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Parner within a period of 4 weeks, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as the case may be ;
B. To direct the respondent No.2 to decide the representations dated 10.02.2022, 21.03.2020 and 04.07.2022 preferred by the petitioner (Exhibit-"I" Colly), within a period of 4 weeks, pending hearing and final disposal of this petition."
khs/Oct.2022/9978
- 2 - 2.
The learned Advocate representing the RBI places on record a copy of the communication received by him, which is marked as 'X' for identification. He submits that steps were already initiated on the basis of the letters dated 10.02.2022, 21.03.2022, 04.06.2022 and 08.07.2022, which were received by the Department of Supervision, RBI, Nagpur. The letter dated 04.07.2022, was not received. On the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in the letter dated 10.02.2022, a special scrutiny of the Bank has already been conducted and the Bank was advised to submit a compliance concerning the deficiencies pointed out in the report.
3.
In the light of the above, this petition is disposed off. We expect respondent No.2 to pursue respondent No.4 to tender it' s compliance report by 21.10.2022, since the Bank has already been directed to do so vide the e-mail of the RBI dated 20.09.2022. Needless to state, thereafter, respondent No.2 would proceed as per the procedure prescribed in Law.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) khs/Oct.2022/9978