Karnataka High Court
The Central Arecanut And Cocoa ... vs The Reserve Bank Of India on 23 November, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.40355/2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
THE CENTRAL ARECANUT AND
COCOA MARKETING AND PROCESSING
CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED, (CAMPCO)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
VARANASI TOWERS
MISSION STREET
MANGALURU-575001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI SURESH BHANDARI M
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNA SHYAM M, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
(ISSUE DEPARTMENT)
NO.10/3/8
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BIRUR POLICE THROUGH THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R2
SRI R.V.S.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.7.2017 ISSUED
BY R-1 THEREBY INSISTING THE PETITIONER TO PROVIDE
SERIAL NUMBERS OF THE CURRENCY NOTES SEIZED AND
RELEASED BY THE COURT BELOW FOR EXCHANGE AND
ALSO TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THE
SERIAL NUMBERS OF THE CURRENCY NOTES SEIZED BY
THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ARE PRODUCED ON
OR BEFORE 30.12.2016 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 19.07.2017 impugned at Annexure 'A' to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to exchange the old currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and issue the new currency notes without insisting on the petitioner to produce the documents to show the serial numbers of the currency concerned.
2. In respect of certain complaint, the money in all amounting to Rs.2,51,150/- consisting of the notes of Rs.500/- denomination which has been demonetized had been seized in the process of investigation prior to the 3 demonetization of such notes. The same was produced before the jurisdictional Court in P.F.No.44/2015. The petitioner claiming entitlement to the same, had filed applications seeking release and pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.2630/2016, the Court below has ordered the release of the amount of Rs.2,51,150/-. The petitioner thus having received the demonetized notes pursuant to such order passed on 31.05.2017 i.e., subsequent to the date of demonetization viz., 08.11.2016 is before this Court, since through the communication impugned at Annexure 'A' dated 19.07.2017, the respondent No.1 has intimated the petitioner that the request for exchanging the notes cannot be considered by them, as the order through which it has been released to the petitioner does not refer to the serial numbers contained in the notes. It is in that circumstance the petitioner is before this Court seeking that the respondent No.1 be directed to exchange the notes without reference to the serial numbers of the notes.
4
3. The respondent No.1 has filed the objections statement and the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 with reference to the same and the Annexures produced at 'R1' and 'R2' would point out that provisions as contained in the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation Of Liabilities) Act, 2017, prohibits any person from holding the specified bank notes and in that view, the demonetized notes cannot be held except in the manner and to the extent as provided therein. It is further pointed out that through the notification dated 12.05.2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, a provision has been made for deposit of the confiscated specified bank notes and in that regard, the condition as specified is that the serial number of the note is required to be mentioned either in the document whereunder the Law Enforcement Agency had confiscated or produced them before the Court and the serial number to be mentioned in the direction of the Court. It is in that view, contended that the respondent No.1 in view of such provision can accept the demonetized note for exchange only under the said circumstance and not otherwise. 5
4. Having taken note of the said contention, the prayer being contrary to the position as enunciated in the Rule as referred to, cannot be considered by this Court. However, what is necessary to be taken into consideration is that the notes of Rs.500/-
denomination, in the instant case, was seized/confiscated by Law Enforcement Agency prior to the date of demonetization and such Law Enforcement Agency which had confiscated and produced it before the Court did not mention the serial number of the notes as it was not a requirement at that stage. However, what cannot be lost sight of is that considering the fact that the order passed by the Court below is dated 31.05.2017, the Court ought to have mentioned the serial numbers of the notes which were released to the custody of the petitioner since the order was on a date subsequent to the date of demonetization. In that view, though the Court below has not mentioned the serial numbers, the right of the petitioner cannot be prejudiced, but at the same time, the same is to be 6 regulated in a manner so as to comply with the Regulations/Rules governing this aspect of the matter.
5. Hence, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Court below with an appropriate application seeking that the Court below receive back the notes released to the petitioner, satisfy itself that the notes surrendered back by the petitioner are the very same notes which had been released to the petitioner at the first instance, verify the serial numbers contained therein and while passing a fresh order, to release the same in favour of the petitioner, shall indicate the serial number of the notes so as to enable the petitioner to re- present the same to the respondent No.1 for the purpose of exchange. In that circumstance, if the notes sought to be exchanged by the petitioner is accompanied by an appropriate order by the Court below indicating the serial number of the notes, the respondent No.1 shall consider such request of the petitioner notwithstanding the impugned communication dated 19.07.2017 issued earlier.
7
In terms of the above noted liberty and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-