VIRENDRA PRASHAD Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Complainant in this case Shri Virender Prasad is a highly qualified Civil Engineer. In June, 1977 he went over to Nigeria for taking up the position of Principal Irrigation Engineer, Incharge of the Sokoto-Rima Rivers Basin Development Authority in that country. He came back to India on February 27,1985 and it is his case that his return to this country was only on a temporary basis and it was his intention to go back after solving some long standing family problems and after exploring the possibility for some business avenues "by way of collaboration in India for his final settlement".

(2.) THE Complainant had foreign currency in sterling accounts as well as foreign currency in rupees account in various Banks in India in addition to foreign currency accounts in London and Nigeria at the time of his return to India in February, 1985. The grievance of the Complainant is that though, according to him, under the relevant Rules contained in the Exchange Control Manual, he was eligible for maintaining of F.C.N.R./NRE accounts alongwith "option" and "right to transfer" for a period of 5 years and he was entitled to "RECON Facility" upto a period of 9 years from the date of his arrival in this country, the Reserve Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) unilaterally and arbitrarily converted his foreign currency account (FCNR) to Indian rupees during the period from 24.9.1985 to 30.10.1986. Though the complainant made representations to the Government of India questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the said action of the Reserve bank of India, he was informed by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (Respondent No. 7) by letter dated 7.11.1986 that since he had returned to India for temporary settlement. He was not entitled to "reconversion facility". The said action taken by Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 7 which resulted in consequential steps being taken by his Bankers namely, Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 has been challenged by the Complainant as arbitrary and illegal and the complainant has prayed for award of compensation to him in the sum of Rs. 2.937 lakhs U.S. dollars, together with interest. There are further prayers for issuing directions to the Respondents to extend to the complainant the reconversion facility for a further period of 5 years from April, 1990 since he was deprived of the said facility during the time when he was allegedly legally entitled to it. There are other incidental prayers have also been incorporated in the Petition but it is not necessary to set them out in extenso.

(3.) FIRST Respondent to the Petitioner and there was no element of hiring of any "service" involved herein.