V. Gopala Gowda, J. - (1.) These writ petitions with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, were heard on merits at the preliminary hearing stage and the cases are listed today in the orders list for dictating orders.
(2.) The first respondent is common in all these petitions. The second respondent in all these petitions are different nationalised banks. The legal questions involved in all these petitions are similar, therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in all these petitions are seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the second respondent-nationalised banks to settle the amount/ debt of the petitioners due to their respective banks by calculating the amount in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI represented by its chief manager by his circular dated May 27, 1999. Further, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a direction to the first respondent to enforce the guidelines referred to supra and monitor its implementation by all the nationalised banks and to take appropriate action against all those bankers who are refusing to follow the guidelines issued by him under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (in short "B. R. Act"), urging various legal contentions.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have contended that the second respondent-banks in all these petitions are bound to follow the guidelines and policy determined by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949; and that they are not discharging their statutory duties as they are refusing to accept the proposals given by the petitioners for final settlement of their debt due to the banks in terms of the guidelines referred to above; that their refusal to accept the proposals given by the petitioners would amount to hostile discrimination in not extending the said benefit to them, when the same has been extended to others (such persons names are not disclosed in these petitions to whom such benefits have been extended by the banks). Further it is urged, that the action of the second respondent in not accepting the proposals for full and final settlement of their debts due to them would affect the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of their submissions, Sri S. N. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first petition has placed strong reliance upon the judgement of the apex court reported in State Bank of Patiala v. Harbans Singh 1994 (81) Comp Cas 486; (1994) 3 SCC 495 and another judgement of the Supreme Court reported in Corporation Bank v. D. S. Gowda (1991) ILR Karn 2234 : 1994 (81) Comp Cas 842; the Division Bench judgement of this court reported in Bank of India v. Karnam Ranga Rao 1988 (64) Comp Cas 477 : (1985) ILR Karn 4282. Further Sri Kasturi, learned counsel for some of the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Venkateswara Rice and Flour Mill v. Union Bank of India 1988 (63) Comp Cas 483; Sri M. R. Nagaraj has placed reliance upon the judgement of the apex court reported in Canara Bank v. P. R. N. Upadhyaya 1998 (94) Comp Cas 569 : (2001) 1 BC 28 (SC) in support of the contention that the law has been laid down by the apex court holding that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India have got statutory force and, therefore, they are binding upon the second respondent nationalised banks in all these petitions and as such it is urged that the action of the second respondent-banks in not accepting the proposals given by the petitioners as one time settlement for want of time is contrary to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 Scheme, guidelines and policy determined by the Reserve Bank of India and the law laid down by the apex court, this court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the cases referred to supra and as such they have sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents-banks in all these petitions as prayed.;