Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Singh vs Banaras State Bank Ltd. And Ors. on 15 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(3)AWC1926
Bench: M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari
JUDGMENT
M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.
1. The petitioner is permitted to move amendment application to challenge the notification of the Central Government dated 22.2.2002, Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He is also permitted to implead the Union of India as respondent No. 3, Sri Vipin Sinha appearing for respondent No. 1 may file counter-affidavit within one month. Learned counsel for the Central Government may also file counter-affidavit within the same period.
2. Issue notice to respondent No. 2 returnable at an early date.
3. List on 8th July, 2O02, along with connected writ petitions, whose details will be supplied by Sri Navin Sinha, advocate.
4. We are shocked at the economic state of affairs which is prevailing in our country for quite some time now. The people of our country usually deposit their hard earned money in the Banks or invest them in U.T.I., I.C.I.C.I., I.D.B.I., Government Schemes, in public undertakings or other organisations. What has been happening for some time now is that the people are not being allowed to withdraw their amounts which they have deposited in the Banks, U.T.I., etc. even when they are in urgent need of money. This state of affairs is also prevailing in many South American countries as portrayed on T. V. The people at the helm of affairs of these organisations apparently have committed large scale fraud and bungling, but are roaming free Instead of being given harsh punishment, while the small men's deposit of their hard earned savings have suddenly gone with the wind, or is indefinitely postponed.
5. The present petition is an example of the state of affairs. The petitioner is a small depositor, who has deposited about Rs. 60,000 in Banaras State Bank Limited, but the Impugned Government Notification states that the depositor can only withdraw Rs. 2,500 from the Bank. This is a shocking state of affairs. There are many people, who wish to withdraw their money from the Banks as they have to spend the money for various reasons, e.g., marriage of daughter, educational fee for their children, medical treatment of the family members (medicines and medical treatment are very expensive in our country), household expenses, for payment of rent etc. The people, who have worked hard throughout their life and saved some money for their old age, are suddenly being told that they cannot withdraw their money. Apart from that, it is scandalous that people are being told that they cannot withdraw money, which legally belongs to them.
6. Article 300A of the Constitution states "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."
7. We are prima facie of the opinion that this constitutional provision read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and other provisions of the Constitution means that not only there must be a statutory law before any body's property can be taken, but also such statutory law or any notification issued thereunder must satisfy the test of reasonabillty and should be non-arbitrary. It is well-settled after Menaka Gandhi's case, AIR 1978 SC 597, that the reasonability test pervades the entire Constitution. Hence, if a law is arbitrary and unreasonable, it will be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. In this case, it appears that the petitioner has been prohibited from taking his money by the order dated 22.2.2002.
8. In our opinion, it is implicit in Article 300A of the Constitution that the law depriving one of one's property should be non-arbitrary law, but in the present case, the impugned order of the respondent is prima facie wholly arbitrary.
9. No doubt Section 45(2) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, states that the total period of moratorium shall not exceed six months. Section 45(3) of the Act states that during the period of moratorium, payment may not be made to the depositor and under sub-sections (4) and (5), the Reserve Bank can prepare a scheme in this connection for reconstruction or amalgamation. However, under Section 45(5)(g)(h) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Immediately after expiry of six months from the order of moratorium, the depositor must be paid the entire amount deposited in cash with interest as prescribed by R.B.I. whenever he desires.
10. We have been informed that a large number of Banks situated in Hyderabad, Nagpur, Kashiram Bank at Shahjahanpur, Bareilly Corporation Bank and the Banks in cooperative sector and other Banks and institutions are defaulting. The scandal of U.T.I, is well known. This state of affairs discloses that a large scale criminal breach of trust has been committed by high-ups, who have defrauded the people, and the R.B.I. seems to be lethargic in taking action against them.
11. We direct that against the Directors and all those, who are guilty in bungling about such state of affairs in the Banaras State Bank Ltd. a C.B.I, enquiry must be instituted for criminal breach of trust, criminal mis-appropriation and other offence and if they are found prima facie guilty, they must be charge-sheeted and if found guilty given harsh punishment. We may mention that the Directors and other high officials of the Bank are getting huge salaries and enjoying huge facilities and enjoying life but at the same time they have defrauded the public and looted their money by not keeping proper supervision and control over the affairs of the Bank, which cannot be tolerated any further by this Court.
12. We are not making any further comments at this stage. List before the appropriate Bench on 8th July, 2002.