Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in the absence of clearance from the High Powered Committee.
Analysis: The challenge was to a writ petition under Article 226 by a regional rural bank. The Court applied the Supreme Court's settled principle that disputes between Government departments, or between limbs of the Government and public sector bodies under governmental control, should not be carried to court without prior clearance from the High Powered Committee. Referring to the scheme of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, the Court treated the petitioner-bank as an instrumentality under the control of the Central Government and held that the committee mechanism was applicable. The Court also rejected the objection that the committee lacked power to pass interim arrangements and held that an interim application could be considered while deciding permission to litigate.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable without prior clearance from the High Powered Committee and was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The Court enforced the governmental clearance mechanism for inter-se disputes involving controlled public bodies and declined to entertain the writ petition on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition between entities functioning as limbs of the Government is not maintainable in the High Court unless the prescribed High Powered Committee has first granted clearance to litigate.