Dismissed

Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Workers Organisation v. Department of Cooperation, Rep. by Its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC27 Jan 2022WP/21817/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner union challenged the winding-up of Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. via Article 226, seeking revival and continuation of employees for the bank. Court dismissed Writ Petition as infructuous because the bank no longer exists and no interim order was granted preventing liquidation. Related prayer for document custody placed on file pending.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for continuation of employees of the Fourth Respondent Bank dismissed as infructuous since the Bank has already been wound up and does not exist.

Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Workers Organisation… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO:21817 OF 2002

¶6

Between:

¶7

Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Workers Organisation, (Regd.No.B-1524) Rep.by its General Secretary C.Narasimha Rao, S/o.C.Narayana, aged 31 years, R/o.H. No. 1 3-6-4621 Al37 Tallagadda, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Commissioner/Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of A.P., Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad.

¶12

J. The Regional Director, Andhra Pradesh, Reserve Bank of lndia, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Rep.by its Liquidator, Special Cadre Deputy Registrar, Nallakunta, Hyderabad.

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 o'( lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue any writ order or direction^particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings RC.No.2372l98/UB dated 05.09.2002 of the second respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, ultravirus the^provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act and consequently by^quashing the same direct the 4th Respondent herein not to deprrve the livelihood of the employees while directing revival of the petitioner Bank.

¶16

WPMP. NO: 9310 OF 2003

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 2nd respondent and 4th respondent to take custody of all the documents and securities lying in the premises of Narayanguda and Dilsukhnagar under^proper inventory.

¶18

WPMP. NO: 931'l OF 2003

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to direct} the Respondents not to shift the Branch's of Narayanguda & Dilsukhnagar^{Branch of} the Respondent Bank.

¶20

M 02

¶21

Petition under Se lion 151 CPC^praying thal in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in supp rrt of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to stay all} further proceedings^puriuant to impugned^{proceedingsRc.No.2372198-UB dated} 5.9.2002 of the second I espondent herein.

¶22

WPM . NO:27341 oF 2l 02

¶23

Petition under Se:tion^'1 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in supl^{ort of the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct} the respondents to conti rue the employees^{of the 4th respondent Bank in service.}

¶24

Counsel for the Petitior er: SRI P. B. VIJAY KUMAR

¶25

Counsel for the Respor dent Nos. 1 &^{2: GP FORCOOPERATION}

¶26

Counsel for the Respor dent No.3:^{SRI K. SRINIVASA MURTHY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respot dent No.4: SRI^{N. VINESHRAJ}

¶28

The Court made the fol owing: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO.218 17 0F 002

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This Writ Petition has been fi led by the petitioner workers. union under Article 22(r ol lhe constitution of Irrdia seeking a writ particularly one irr the ,ature or writ of Mandarnus decraring the irnpugned proceedings Rc.No2372/98/UB dr.05.09.2002 ol rhe 2,,,1 respondent as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus the provisions the A.p. Cooperative Societies (APCS) Act and consequently to quash the sarne and direct the 4'1'respondent not to deprive the livelihood of the ernployees while directi,g revival of tlre 4tl' respondent bank and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,ble Court rnay deerr fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶33

Brief facts leading to the firing of this writ petition are trrat the 4' respondent bank was registered under Hyderabad Cooperative Societies Act with registration No.20399 in the year 195 l. Thereafter, on 17.12.1993, it was included in the list of prirnary Cooperative Banks and the petitioner wor.kers rvere ernployed in the said lrank. On 26 06.2001, tlre ,3"i respondent bank declared the 4tr,respondent bank as weak vide proceedings No.UBD(H) No.2803/l 2.09.1418/20002001 d1.26.06.2001. On the basis of such letter, the 3"r respondent bank by its order dt.l1 .01 .2002 rejected the application filed by the 4th

¶34

\' P \o 2 ls ll ol lt){)l

¶35

¶36

respondent for ssuance of licence to undeftake^{banking trusiness} under Section 21 of the Banking Regulation^{Act, 1949, against which} the 4tl' respon lent approached this Hon'ble Court bv^filing W.P.No.208l ol 2002 and this Corrt rvas^pleased to^{grantrnterirn} stay on 06.02.2002 i r W.P.M.P.No.2453 of^{2002. Horvever, Ihe stay was} vacated on 07.⁾⁵ 2002 in W.V.M.P,No,928 of²⁰⁰² and^{the writ} petition was per ding for final hearing. Meanrvhile. the RUI conducted an inspection ur dcr Sectiou l5 ol'the r\ct witlt rciirence to tlre bank's linancial positir n as orr i 1.0-1.200 I in ulriclr it rias r-evcaletl that the operations o1' he^,1'r' r'espottdertt har"e been contlttcted in sttch a rnanner rvhich s detriniental to tlre irrterests olllte^present arrd firtule depositors and also that certain irregularities were noticed including erosion in the value of its assets which wiped out its^paid capital, reserves and p'ovisions but also affected the deposits and that the NPA's of the b rnk stood at 99% of its loans and advances outstanding as on 3l.03...001 and that the bank continued to default in maintenance o cash reserve and liquid assets. In view of tl.re same, the bank was iss red a show-cause notice bv the RBI and the 4rl' respondent ba rk submitted its reply. However, the II.BI was not satistied ivitlr he said repll and b',,orders dl.05 09.2002. it r as held that the Aryan Cooperative Urban Batrk Lirnited. Hyderabad slrall be w'orrnrl up as 1:r'Seclron 64(l)( t)) atrri Sri V Blrlrskaru ( halr'. l)cputv Ilcgistral was tppointc(l as L-irlLriclatol c'rl'respondcnt No.J L-,ank under Section 65 r f the A.P. Cooperative Socielres Acr, 1964, The

¶37

\ P \o 2lx ll of l(l(ll

¶38

¶39

Liquidator was directed to takc charge in tertns of Section l:5 B(ii) of the APCS Act, 1964 read with Section l3-D of tlre Deposit It.tsrrance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 and also take charge of all the assets and liabilities and records of the Aryan Cooperative Urban Bank Limited and report compliance. This order^has been challenged by the ernployees union in the^present Writ^Petition.

¶40

It is observed that the order ofdissolution was in the^{year 2002.} The prayer ofthe petitioner is to direct tlre respondents to continue^the ernployees of the 4'l' respondent bank in service and^{pass such otlter} order or orders. However, no interinr direction was^given by tltis Court and there is no counter filed by any of the respondents.^{'flrus, it} appears that the 4tr' respondent bank is not in existence, and^wherethe bank is not in existence, no direction can be^given to continue the employees in the said bank. Thus, the Writ Petition^{has become} infructuous.

¶41