Gurgaon Gramin Bank Officers ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4953 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of decision: 30th September, 2014

+               W.P.(C) No.5118/2014 & CM No.10204/2014 (for stay).
       GURGAON GRAMIN BANK OFFICER'S
       ASSOCIATION                              ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Adv.
                                           Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                    Through:                   Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit
                                               Tandon, Mr. Amit Mahajan & Ms.
                                               Aastha Jain, Advs. for UOI.
                                               Mr. V. Sudheer & Mr. Alvin, Advs.
                                               for Syndicate Bank.

                                            AND
+      W.P.(C) No.8146/2013, CMs No.17191/2013 (for stay) &
       1593/2014 (for directions).
       GURGAON GRAMIN BANK OFFICER'S
       ORGANIZATION                                             ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Barun Kumar Sinha with Ms.
                                      Pratibha Sinha, Advs.
                                   Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit
                                      Tandon, Mr. Amit Mahajan & Ms.
                                      Aastha Jain, Advs. for UOI.
                                      Mr. V. Sudheer & Mr. Alvin, Advs.
                                      for Syndicate Bank.

                                            AND


W.P.(C) No. 5118/2014, W.P.(C) No. 8146/2013 & W.P.(C) No.5482/2014        Page 1 of 14
 +                  W.P.(C) No. 5482/2014, CMs No.10886/2014 (for stay) .
       GURGAON GRAMIN BANK WORKERS
       ORGANIZATION                                     ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Adv.
                            Versus
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS                         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Amit
                               Tandon, Mr. Amit Mahajan & Ms.
                               Aastha Jain, Advs. for UOI.
                               Mr. V. Sudheer & Mr. Alvin, Advs.
                               for Syndicate Bank.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. W.P.(C) No.5118/2014 is filed as a Public Interest Litigation impugning

the Notification dated 29th November, 2013 bearing F.No.7/9/2011-RRB and

the letter dated 13th November, 2013 bearing F.No.7/09/2011-RRB, both of the

Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services inter alia having the

effect of amalgamating the Gurgaon Gramin Bank (GGB) and the Haryana

Gramin Bank (HGB). The said writ petition came up first before us on 13 th

August, 2014 when upon our enquiring from the counsel for the petitioner as to

how this Court had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition and / or as

to how this Court was the forum conveniens for entertaining the petition, the

counsel informed that an identical issue as involved in the said petition was also

pending consideration in W.P.(C) No.8146/2013 pending before a Single Judge

of this Court. We accordingly directed W.P.(C) No.8146/2013 also to be listed

before us.

2. W.P.(C) No.8146/2013 has been filed claiming the same relief as in

W.P.(C) No.5118/2014 supra. The same came up before a learned Single Judge

of this Court on 19th December, 2013 when upon doubt being expressed as to

the maintainability thereof, the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment.

Thereafter the said writ petition was being listed from time to time for

preliminary hearing, till it was listed, as per the aforesaid directions, before us.

3. During the hearing of the aforesaid two petitions on 27th August, 2014 it

was disclosed that W.P.(C) No.5482/2014 entailing the same issue was also

pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. We accordingly

directed W.P.(C) No.5482/2014 also to be listed before us and find the same

also to be claiming the same relief as the other two petitions and notice thereof

also having not been issued as yet.

4. We accordingly, with the consent of the counsels in all the three

petitions, on 19th September, 2014 heard arguments on admission, particularly

on the aspects aforesaid of territorial jurisdiction and forum conveniens and

reserved orders.

5. Both, GGB and HGB were Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) established

under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (RRB Act). While GGB was

established in the year 1976 under the sponsorship of Syndicate Bank, HGB

came into existence on 21st December, 2005 on amalgamation of three other

Regional Rural Banks namely Haryana Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hissar Sirsa

Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ambala Kurukshetra Gramin Bank and is

sponsored by the Punjab National Bank (PNB).

6. Section 23A of the RRB Act provides for amalgamation of RRBs by

Notification in the Official Gazette, if the Central Government, after

consultation with the National Bank i.e. the National Bank for Agriculture and

Rural Development (NABARD), the concerned State Government and the

sponsor Banks, is of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest or in the

interest of the development of the area served by any Regional Rural Bank or in

the interest of the Regional Rural Banks themselves that two or more Regional

Rural Banks should be amalgamated into a single Regional Rural Bank.

7. It is inter alia the case of the petitioners:-

(a) that the Department of Financial Services of the Government of

India on or about 14th November, 2011 initiated a proposal for

amalgamation of smaller RRBs into a single bigger RRB within a

State, with respect to 18 States and including of amalgamation of

GGB with HGB;

(b) that NABARD opined against the amalgamation of GGB and

HGB and alternatively opined that Syndicate Bank may be

designated as the Sponsor Bank after amalgamation of GGB with

HGB, as PNB is having status of Sponsor Bank in five States as

against Syndicate Bank which is having Sponsor Bank status only

in two States;

(c) Syndicate Bank also strongly opposed the amalgamation of GGB

and HGB and alternatively suggested that it be given the

sponsorship of the amalgamated Bank;

(d) the Government of the State of Haryana was in favour of

amalgamation of GGB and HGB and further stated that the

amalgamated bank be advised to address the issues of making

adequate allocations for corporate social responsibility activities;

(e) general public of the area of operation of GGB gave

representations that GGB is rendering good services to its

customers and expressing an apprehension that after amalgamation

the services of the amalgamated bank to the customers would be

adversely affected; and,

(f) that though in the process of decision making, sponsorship of the

amalgamated bank on amalgamation of GGB and HGB was

proposed to be given to Syndicate Bank but upon a letter from the

Chief Minister, Government of Haryana, the Government of India

without considering the provision and spirit of Section 23A of the

RRB Act, vide impugned letter dated 13th November, 2013

approved amalgamation of GGB and HGB with sponsorship of

PNB and issued the impugned Notification dated 29th November,

2013 of amalgamation of GGB with HGB to form Sarva Haryana

Gramin Bank (SHGB) under the sponsorship of PNB.

8. While the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.8146/2013 and

W.P.(C) No.5482/2014 and which petitioners are associations of officers and

workers of GGB, besides of the said amalgamation being contrary to law and a

procedure prescribed therefor, is that the amalgamation affects the service

conditions of their members, the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.5118/2014 and which petitioner is also an association of officers of GGB,

besides being to the effect that the amalgamation will affect the rights and

interests of its members also, is that the amalgamation also affects the rights

and interests of other residents of the area earlier under the operation of GGB.

9. The counsels for the petitioners in response to the query raised by us of

territorial jurisdiction, have urged that this Court would have territorial

jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the decision making authority for

amalgamation is the Central Government having situs within the jurisdiction of

this Court. It is further contended that even PNB has its Head Office within the

territorial jurisdiction of this Court. We may record that besides the Union of

India (UOI) and PNB, i) GGB, ii) HGB (though both have since ceased to

exist); iii) SHGB; iv) State of Haryana, Chandigarh; v) NABARD, Mumbai;

and, vi) Syndicate Bank, Bangalore, have also been impleaded as respondents

to all the three petitions.

10. A Five Judge Bench of this Court in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd.

Vs. Union of India AIR 2011 Delhi 174 has held:-

(i) the concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is

obligatory on the part of the Court to see the convenience of all the

parties before it;

(ii) the convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the

existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law

relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are

necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other

ancillary aspects;

(iii) the principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep

encapsulates the concept that a cause of action arising within the

jurisdiction of the Court would not itself constitute to be the

determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter;

(iv) while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the Court cannot be totally oblivious of the

concept of forum conveniens; and,

(v) while entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens

and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by

the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case.

11. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are of the opinion that this Court is

not the best suited / equipped Court and not the forum conveniens to decide the

cause of action on which all the writs are based and the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana would be a more suitable Court to entertain the lis, for the

following reasons:-

A. the cause of action pleaded in the petitions, for seeking the relief

impugning the letter dated 13th November, 2013 and the

Notification dated 29th November, 2013 of the Central

Government, is of the same, either prejudicially affecting the

service conditions of the members of each of the petitioners or the

effect and impact thereof being prejudicial to the interest of the

public; the public to whose interest amalgamation is averred to be

prejudicial is the public residing in the area of operation of the

GGB i.e. people living in the State of Haryana; similarly the cause

of action for the relief on the ground of the amalgamation affecting

the service conditions of the members of the petitioners but also

has to accrue at the place where the employer was situated i.e.

Gurgaon and even if it be assumed that some of the members of

the petitioners may be residing at Delhi, the same would still not

vest Delhi with jurisdiction;

B. The RRB Act was enacted to provide for incorporation, regulation

and winding up of RRBs with a view to developing the rural

economy by providing, for the purpose of development of

agriculture, trade, commerce, industry and other productive

activities in the rural areas, credit and other facilities, particularly

to the small and marginal farmers, agricultural laborers, artisans

and small entrepreneurs;

C. The Notification for establishment of any RRB, under Section 3(1)

of the RRB Act, is also required to specify the local limits within

which such RRB shall operate; it is thus not as if the RRB once

established can have operations over any area; though again the

petitions do not specify but it can safely be assumed that the area

of operation of GGB, making grievance of amalgamation whereof

with HGB this petition is filed, must have been within the State of

Haryana only and could not have extended to Delhi;

D. that vide Section 18(2)(b) of the RRB Act also, the RRBs can

undertake business of granting loans and advances within its

notified area only;

E. the criteria laid down in Section 23A of the RRB Act for

amalgamation of RRBs is also of public interest or interest of

development of the area served by the RRB; thus the challenge

made in these petitions to the amalgamation of GGB and HGB to

form SHGB has to be tested on the anvil of public interest of the

area which GGB was serving and which is situated in Haryana; it

is but just and proper that the same be tested by the High Court of

Punjab and Haryana and not by this Court;

F. that the allegation in the petitions also is inter alia of the Central

Government having blindly followed the opinion and views of the

State Government i.e. of the Government of Haryana; the actions

of the Government of the State of Haryana are best left to be tested

by the High Court of that State rather than by the High Court of

another place;

G. the Central Government is omnipresent throughout the country and

is not confined to Delhi only; it is thus not as if the Central

Government cannot be sued in the High Court of the States of

Punjab and Haryana;

H. the High Court of the State of Haryana has a more proximate

connection to the lis, than this Court; and,

I. the action of the Central Government of amalgamation of RRBs,

besides with the consultation of the State Government - in this

case the Government of the State of Haryana, is also to be in

consultation with NABARD; according to the petitioners also, the

Head Office of NABARD is outside the territorial jurisdiction of

this Court i.e. in Mumbai.

12. The arguments of the counsels for the petitioners during the hearing

indicated that the grievance of the petitioners is more qua the PNB instead of

Syndicate Bank having been made the sponsor bank of the amalgamated

SHGB; Syndicate Bank also is stated to be having its Head Office at Bangalore,

outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; thus out of eight respondents

impleaded, only two i.e. UOI and PNB are stated to be having office at Delhi.

13. We had during the hearing wondered as to why, inspite of the aforesaid,

the petitions have been filed in this Court and had enquired from the counsel

whether any challenge as made in these petitions had been made in the High

Court of Punjab and Haryana and the fate thereof. None of the counsels were

able to make any statement in this regard.

14. Though the counsels for the petitioners during the hearing did not cite

any case law but post hearing have filed copies of judgments in Lt. Col.

Khajoor Singh Vs. The Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532 and Jayaswals

NECO Limited Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/8079/2007, without however

specifying or highlighting as to on which part of the said judgments reliance is

being placed upon. In any case, the said judgments being of the time prior to

the judgment of the Five Judge Bench of this Court in M/s Sterling Agro

Industries Ltd. (supra), we do not need to go into the same.

15. We accordingly refuse to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the grievance made in these

petitions and dismiss the writ petitions on the ground of this Court being not the

Court of appropriate territorial jurisdiction and / or the forum conveniens to

adjudicate the lis as raised in these petitions and the Courts / Fora in the State

of Haryana being more apposite to entertain and consider the said disputes.

16. We may record that the counsels during the hearing had raised certain

other contentions also on merits but which are not being discussed by us,

having decided not to entertain these petitions.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 pp