Kurian Babu vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

Sujata Manohar, J.—This is an application for review of an order passed by us (Myself & Deshmukh, JJ.), dated 3-2-1992 dismissing the writ petition. The petitioner appeared in person before us for the hearing of the petition and he appears in person today also. The grounds of review, on the face of it, do not justify any review of the order. The grievance made by the petitioner in the application to the effect that he did not get a chance to reply to the affidavit filed by the respondents or, as he puts it, "to refute the falsehood and other allegations made in the above affidavit" are incorrect. In fact, we heard him at length before dismissing the Writ Petition and we have heard him at length today (more than 45 minutes) only because he is a party in person. We have also not taken into account for the purpose of the present order, the question of maintainability of the Review Petition because the petitioner is a party in person. We have also once again examined the merits of the petitioner''s claim in the Writ Petition and heard him as well as the respondents on the merits of the Writ Petition afresh so as to leave no grievance to the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is for an order directing the South Indian Bank Limited, having a branch office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Pune to give the petitioner an account opening form because the petitioner wants to open a bank account there as the sole proprietor of a firm known as M/s. Kay & Bee Associates. The petitioner had such an account with the 4th respondent bank in the year 1974-75, but, according to the petitioner, this account was closed because his firm became a sick unit.

Thereafter on 30th of August 1991, the petitioner opened a bank account with the 4th respondent bank in the name of his wife as the sole proprietress of Geeta Industries. According to the bank, the operation of this account is looked after by the petitioner. According to the 4th respondent bank, the signature of the wife of the petitioner on some cheques issued by her did not tally with the specimen signature of the petitioner''s wife in their records. In respect of first of" such cheques the bank had telephoned the petitioner''s wife and informed her that the signature did not tally and that she should rectify her specimen signature form with the bank. The wife of the petitioner, however, did not do so. It seems that there was a commotion in the premises of the bank during business hours sometime in January 1991 on this account and the petitioner created a scene in the bank premises in front of the customers of the bank on that day, There has also been a litigation between the petitioner''s wife and the 4th respondent bank in respect of this account. The wife of the petitioner filed a suit being RIS/47/92 to restrain the 4th respondent bank from closing her account. She had initially obtained an injunction against the bank but the injunction has since been vacated and we are informed that in April 1992 the account of the petitioner''s wife is closed. The petitioner has alleged some violation of Court orders in this regard. We are, however, not concerned with this dispute. The 4th respondent bank has declined to issue an account opening form to the petitioner because the 4th respondent bank has come to a bona fide conclusion that it will not be in the interest of the business of the 4th respondent bank, to issue an account opening form to the petitioner looking to the conduct of the petitioner. There are some other instances set out in the affidavit of the bank, but we are not dealing with the same here. The refusal of the bank appears to be bona fide. Apart from anything else, we do not see any legal right in the petitioner to have a bank account with any particular bank. It is open to the petitioner to go to any other bank, if he so desires.

It is also the contention of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that no writ petition is maintainable against the South Indian Bank Limited, because it is not a "State". We have not gone into this submission also because even otherwise on merit, in our view, the petitioner has no case. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by granting the application of the petitioner.

Civil Application dismissed.