1990 (1) TMI 317 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses writ petition due to lack of locus standi, no jurisdiction for specific prayers, and non-justiciability.

R.R. Delavai Versus The Indian Overseas Bank and Others

R.R. Delavai Versus The Indian Overseas Bank and Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Locus Standi of the petitioner.2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226.3. Justiciability of the subject matter.4. Specific prayers for mandamus against the respondents.Detailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:The petitioner claimed to be the Chairman of the Madras Provincial Consumers' Association, Convener of the Civil Liberties Panel, and the elected Honorary President of the Triplicane Co-operative Bank Limited. The petitioner argued that as a tax-payer and citizen of India, he had the standing to file the writ petition. The Court held that the petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The Court referenced various Supreme Court decisions, including Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. and S.P. Gupta v. President of India, highlighting that public interest litigation (PIL) allows any citizen acting bona fide with sufficient interest to seek judicial redress for public injury. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as a rate-payer, had the requisite standing to file the writ petition.2. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226:The Court affirmed its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is broad enough to issue a writ for any purpose, not limited to the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. The Court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.3. Justiciability of the Subject Matter:The first prayer sought a mandamus directing the third respondent to seek the expert opinion of the Auditor-General of India regarding the overseas operations of the first respondent bank. The Court examined the relevant constitutional provisions and the Comptroller and Auditor-General's (Duties, Powers, and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971 (Act 56 of 1971). The Court noted that the first respondent did not have branches in Sayapur or Indonesia, and there was no duty on the third respondent to refer the matter to the Auditor-General. The Court held that there was no public duty on the third respondent to seek the Auditor-General's opinion, and thus, it could not issue a mandamus as requested.4. Specific Prayers for Mandamus Against the Respondents:Prayer No. 1: The petitioner sought a direction to the third respondent to seek the Auditor-General's opinion on the overseas operations of the first respondent bank. The Court found no duty on the third respondent to seek such an opinion and dismissed this prayer.Prayer No. 2: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to place before the Court the full Inspection Report of Shri A. Namasivayam. The Court held that respondents 2 and 3 could not be directed to produce the report as they had no control over Shri A. Namasivayam, who was an employee of the first respondent. Regarding the first respondent, the Court noted that the first respondent had not denied the correctness or genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner. However, the Court found no basis to reject the Balance Sheet or the report of the statutory auditors, which showed no bad debts. The Court also considered the confidentiality obligations under the Banking Act of Singapore and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, which imposed secrecy on banking officials.The Court concluded that the public interest would be better served by refusing the relief sought by the petitioner, especially given the petitioner's own admissions that the loans were recoverable. The Court also emphasized that formulating guidelines as requested by the petitioner would amount to judicial legislation, which is beyond the Court's competence.Conclusion:The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner had no locus standi, the Court had no jurisdiction to grant the specific prayers, and the subject matter was not justiciable. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining banking confidentiality and the separation of powers, ultimately deciding that the reliefs sought by the petitioner could not be granted.