- (1.) Respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition are the Indian Overseas Bank and the General Manager, Regional Office (I) Kolkata of such bank, respectively whereas the Reserve Bank of India, and its Regional Director and Assistant General Manager are the respondents 4, 5 and 6, respectively. Relief claimed in the writ petition against the aforesaid respondents reads as follows:- a) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to revoke and/or cancel authorization/license being No. B.L. 5885/22.03.019/2010-2011 Dated October 14, 2011 for Mid Corporate Branch in favour of the respondent No. 1 to run branch and/or office from the said premises being Ground Floor together with basement at premises No. 3 Chowringhee Approach, Kolkata 700 072; b) A writ of and/or in the nature of mandamus do issue commanding the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 to consider the representation being memo. No. BHPL/IOB/2011-12 dated December 30, 2011 in terms of the notification bearing No. RBI/2008-091132. DBOD: BL.BC. 32/22.01.03.2008-09 dated August 21, 2008 and pass a reasoned order accordingly; c) A writ of and/or in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 from operating any Branch at premises No. 3 Chowringhee Approach, Kolkata 700 072; According to Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner (a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956), the lease agreement in pursuance whereof the respondent No. 1 was allowed to operate its Chowringhee Branch from the premises owned by the petitioner has expired as far back as on September 30, 2002 and despite the same, the respondent No. 1 has failed and neglected to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the petitioner and that it has been continuing to occupy the said premises in clear violation of circular/letter dated August 21, 2008 issued by the respondent No. 4.
(2.) The Court's attention has been invited by him to a condition therein to the effect that it is incumbent upon all public sector banks to ensure that all their branches/offices operate from premises on the basis of a subsisting and valid lease agreement, free of any disputes between the bank and the landlords concerned, and an advice was given that head offices of the banks may immediately undertake a review in this regard to ensure that the branches/offices operate from premises, having a valid and subsisting lease agreement. Attention is also drawn to the concluding paragraph of the said circular/letter requiring the public sector banks to report immediately and in any case not later than September 30, 2008 the list of their branches/offices that are operating in premises in respect of which a dispute is pending with the landlord, as per the enclosed format to the officers specified, for enabling the respondent No. 4 to take a view on the appropriateness or otherwise of continuing authorisation for the branch/office to function thereat.
(3.) By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court (Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra, 2002 1 SCC 367) as well as decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court (Eastern Paper Mill Machinery Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, 2005 AIR(Cal) 21 and in (Ruia Cotex Ltd. vs. Corporation Bank, 2007 AIR(Cal) 241), it is further contended by Mr. Basu that the guidelines issued by the respondent No. 4 are binding on all public sector banks and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 has disentitled itself to continue with the authorisation granted in its favour by the respondent No. 4 for operating its Chowringhee Branch from the said premises.;