[2025:RJ-JP:3298] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13/2005 Smt. Meena Singh Wife Of Shri Lokesh Kumar Singh, Aged about 42 years, Resident of 81/33, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Banking, New Delhi. 2. Reserve Bank Of India Through The Executive Director, Sahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra. 3. Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Rajasthan, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. 5. The Liquidator, Lok Vikas Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited and Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jaipur Division (KHAND), Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation, Mumbai. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr.Sanjay Srivastava, Adv. with Mr.Adeet Srivastava, Adv. Mr.Samakshu Dosat (for U.O.I.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 23/01/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 28.09.2004 passed by the Reserve Bank of India (for short ‘RBI’) cancellng the license of the Lok Vikas Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Jaipur and order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur winding up of the Bank and appointing a liquidator. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of cancellation of the license. Further that against the order dated 11.10.2004, the petitioner has statutory [2025:RJ-JP:3298] (2 of 2) [CW-13/2005] remedy of appeal under Section 105 of the Rajathan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (hereafter ‘the Act of 2001’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that albeit appeal was preferred but it has not been decided till date. 4. The appeal against cancellation of license is pending and petitioner cannot avail two parallel remedies simultaneously. 5. With regard to challenge to the order dated 11.10.2004 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner has remedy of appeal and no exceptional case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 6. This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the pending appeal against the order dated 28.09.2004. The petitioner if so advised may make an application for early decision of the pending appeal. In eventuality of such an application being filed, there is no doubt the appellate authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. 7. With regard to challenge to the order dated 11.10.2004, the petitioner is relegating to the remedy of appeal. Considering that this petition is pending since 2005, in eventuality of petitioner filing an appeal within eight weeks from today, the same shall be treated to be filed within limitation. (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/228