9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition and territorial jurisdiction. 2. Validity of the second review petition. 3. Compliance with RBI guidelines and statutory requirements. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Territorial Jurisdiction: The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the Delhi High Court should not entertain the petition as the operations were in Rajasthan. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the Appellate Authority was located in Delhi, and all hearings took place in Delhi, thereby giving the Delhi High Court jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The Court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in the case of *Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu* to support this decision, emphasizing that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arising within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was sufficient to entertain the writ petition. 2. Validity of the Second Review Petition: The appellant filed a second review petition, which was allowed by an officer different from the one who decided the appeal, directing the RBI to restore the appellant's license. The Court scrutinized the provisions of Section 22(4), (5), and (6) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and held that quasi-judicial authorities cannot assume powers of review unless conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication. The Court relied on various judgments, including *Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji* and *State of Assam v. J.N. Roy Biswas*, to conclude that the power of review must be explicitly available and that a second review is not permissible. Thus, the impugned order passed on the second review petition was deemed non est and quashed. 3. Compliance with RBI Guidelines and Statutory Requirements: The appellant failed to maintain the minimum paid-up capital of Rs. 5 crores as required by the RBI Guidelines, despite multiple reminders and extensions. Consequently, the RBI exercised its powers under Section 35A and Section 22 of the Act to prohibit certain activities and eventually cancel the appellant's banking license. The appellant's statutory appeal and first review petition were dismissed. The Court noted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the appellant to rectify the deficiencies, which it failed to do, thereby endangering the interest of depositors. The argument that the first review petition's irregularity should waive the objection to the second review petition was also dismissed, as the RBI had already raised an objection to the review power in its reply to the first review petition. Conclusion: The Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Learned Single Judge, who correctly concluded that the order dated 14-9-2004 passed by the Appellate Authority on the second review petition was non est and liable to be quashed. The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
