Delhi High Court
Nirbhaya Mahila Welfare ... vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 30 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 538/2013
NIRBHAYA MAHILA WELFARE
ASSOCIATION SUBHASH NAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sachin Mishra, Adv.
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Counsel for the respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 30.01.2013
W.P.(C) 538/2013 & CM 1028/2013(stay)
1. The petitioner before this Court is an association of the residents of
Subhash Nagar in Delhi. Respondent No.3 - State Bank of India has opened
a branch in the main market of Subhash Nagar, which it is seeking to shift
from Subhash Nagar to D-1, Ajay Enclave, Near Ashok Nagar, New Delhi.
Pleading inconvenience and hardship to the customers on account of the
proposed shifting, the petitioner is seeking a writ prohibiting shifting of the
aforesaid Branch.
W.P.(C) 538/2013 page 1 of 4
2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed before us a communication dated 28 th December, 2012 from
respondent State Bank of India, to the Chief Editor, G-Times Group of
India, explaining therein the reasons for deciding to shift the branch from
Subhash Nagar to D-1, Ajay Enclave, Near Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. The
following are the reasons given by the Bank for shifting the said branch :-
(i). Visibility of the existing branch premises is limited as it is located
inside a narrow lane away from the main road.
(ii). Parking space available for the customers is inadequate and residents
protest against erratic parking.
(iii). Branch banking area for customers is located in two floors, which is
inconvenient especially for old customers. The stair case leading to the 1 st
floor is not safe specially for old and handicapped customers as the building
is old.
3. A large number of factors are required to be taken by Bank into
consideration while deciding where to open a branch. These factors may,
inter alia, include availability of an appropriate premises for locating the
branch, availability of adequate parking for the vehicles of staff members
W.P.(C) 538/2013 page 2 of 4
and the business branch is likely to fetch at a particular place, and the
number of branches already functioning in the locality. These very reasons
will hold good, while deciding whether to shift a Branch from its existing
location or not.
4. If the Bank realizes that the location of a particular Branch is not
appropriate, the same being inconvenient to the customers or not having
adequate space or not having adequate parking area, it may, in its wisdom
shift such a Branch to an appropriate location and the Court cannot interfere
with such a commercial decision taken by the Bank. No one has a
fundamental or even a legal right to have a Bank in the vicinity. Therefore,
the Court cannot, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution interfere with the decision taken by the Bank in this
regard.
5. If the premises where the branch is situated in a narrow lane and for
this reason, is not attracting enough customers or does not have adequate
parking space, no fault can be found with the decision of the Bank to shift
the branch to an appropriate location. It has also come in the
communication sent by the Bank that the existing premises in Subhash
W.P.(C) 538/2013 page 3 of 4
Nagar comprises two floors which is inconvenient to aged and handicapped
customers who have to climb upto the first floor. This, to our mind, is also a
relevant consideration in deciding to shift the branch from its existing
location.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ
petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 30, 2013
'sn'
W.P.(C) 538/2013 page 4 of 4
