- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. H.M. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNISWAMY NAYAK, NO.1259/691, 13TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 085. PROMOTER AND FOUNDER PRESIDENT OF CAUVERY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (UNDER LIQUIDATION) (5TH RESPONDENT) SMT. R.K. SARASWATHI W/O DR. H.V. KRISHNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.1062, 7TH 'A' MAIN III BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560 034. SHAREHOLDER, MEMBER, SECRETARY OF ERSTWHILE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF M/S CAUVEY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (UNDER LIQUIDATION) (5TH RESPONDENT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. SUBRAMANYA S UPASANA.,ADVOCATE) AND: Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 1. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE URBAN BANKS DEPARTMENTS GARMENT HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 018. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, URBAN BANKS DEPARTMENT NO.10/3/8, P.B. NO. 5467 NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY & APPELLATE AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (BANKING DIVISION) GOVT. OF INDIA JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 4. THE REGISTRAR DEPT. OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.1 ALI-ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 052. 5. CAUVERY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., # 21, SHOPPING COMPLEX, 6TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, MICO LAYOUT, B.T.M. 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS O.L., …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANIK B.T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R4; SRI. P. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2012 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNX-W; TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2004 PASSED BY R1 VIDE ANNX-H; DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO REVIVE THE R5 BANK BY CONSIDERING THE REVIVAL PACKAGE FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE R5 BANK. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This petition is originally by one H. M. Ramaiah, upon his demise, is substituted by one Smt. R. K. Saraswati claiming to be the erstwhile Secretary of one Cauvery Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,/respondent No.5 herein under liquidation seeking following reliefs; "i) A Writ/ Order/ Direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 09.03.2012 passed in Appeal No. 14(4)/2004-AC by the third respondent produced as Annexure-W. ii) A Writ/ Order/ Direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order no, UBD.WBS.BSD(IV)LR/10- 12.03.2035/2003-04 dated 02/02/2004 passed by the first respondent produced as Annexure-H. iii) Direct the respondents 1 & 2 to revive the 5th respondent bank by considering the revival package filed by the petitioner on behalf of the 5th respondent bank. iv. Pass such other order/s deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case with cost of the proceedings throughout." 2. Brief facts of the case are; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 (a) that the respondent No.5/bank was established in the year 1998, by the original petitioner H. M. Ramaiah as its Chief promoter. He had obtained the banking license from respondent Nos.1 and 2/Reserve Bank of India and had thus on compliance of the requirement of law had started the banking business. The respondent No.5/Bank was constituted primarily for the benefit of members of SC/ST community. The license thus granted was an exceptional one. It was permitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI to raise Rs.20,00,000/- as share capital amongst the members. It has 2,042 members, of which 51% are belonging to SC/ST community. (b). The Respondent No.5/bank was subjected to inspection by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI during the month of October, 2000 and had raised certain queries related to the procedures adopted in functioning of the banking business, which was suitably replied by the petitioner and other members of the respondent No.5/Bank. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI had not communicated anything further enabling the petitioner or to the respondent No.5/bank to provide any information regarding its satisfactory functioning. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 (c) That after a gap of one year after the first inspection, respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI had again inspected respondent No.5/bank between February and March, 2002 and had again raised certain defects and deficiencies in its performance. A report dated 15.04.2002 was furnished which was duly replied. Though respondent No.5/bank had achieved profits for the first year of its performance and had also rectified the defects which were pointed out, yet the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI did not consider any of the same. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI inspected the respondent No.5/bank for the third time again, pointing out the procedural lapses. The same was rectified in terms of the conditions stipulated by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI. (d) That on 24.06.2002 as per Annexure-J a direction was issued by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/RBI under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, calling upon the respondent No.5/bank to submit to the Deputy General Manager, Urban Bank Department, Reserve Bank of India, such statements relating to its operations as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India in this behalf. Though the notice calling upon the respondent No.5/bank to show cause was apparently issued, even before any response could - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 be issued, the Registrar, Department of Co- operative Societies passed an order on 05.08.2003 as per Annexure-E in purported exercise of his powers under Section 30(5) of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, appointing Administrator on the direction of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI purportedly issued by its communication dated 03.07.2003. (e) That by an order dated 02.02.2004 vide Annexure-H, the respondent No.1/RBI cancelled the license that was issued in favour of the respondent No.5/bank in excise of its power under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is alleged no notice of any nature whatsoever was issued to the petitioner or the respondent No.5/bank and Administrator took over the charge of the respondent No.5/Bank. (f) Thereafter, the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies by order dated 05.08.2004 as per Annexure-N appointed a liquidator in exercise of his power under Section 72-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. As such, it is alleged that the petitioner could not furnish any cause or justification. That as against the order passed under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the petitioner had preferred an appeal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 before the respondent No.3/Joint Secretary and Appellate Authority under Section 22(5) of the Banking Registrations Act, 1949 which came to be rejected by order dated 09.03.2012 as per Annexure-W. It is these orders dated 02.02.2004 and 09.03.2012 at Annexure - H and W respectively which are put in question in this writ petition. 3. Sri. 3. Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the counsel of the petitioner, taking this Court through the records submits; (a) that neither the original petitioner nor any other board members of respondent No.5/bank were given any opportunity before the order under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 as per Annexure-H came to passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI, cancelling the licence. Even if the petitioner intended to give any reply or justification, the same was an exercise in futility inasmuch as an Administrator had already been appointed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 (b) that the grounds on which order dated 02.02.2004 as per Annexure-H came to be passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI is based on tentative figures without benefit of any auditing. Thus, whatever has proceeded further on the basis of said order has no justification as no definite figures have been arrived at by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI and continuation of the liquidation process by the respondent No.3/Joint Registrar based on such an order would be erroneous. (c) That though statutory appeal under Section 22(5) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 was filed, these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the respondent No.3/appellate authority going to the root of the matter. (d) Referring to proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 he emphatically submits that it was mandatory on the part of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to revive the respondent No.5/bank. Since no such opportunity is granted, entire process of winding up of respondent falls foul of the said mandate. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 (e) He further refers to sub-Sections (3) and (4) of Section 72 of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 to contend that the Registrar who is now in the process of winding up of the bank is vested with the statutory power to cancel the order of winding up if he found the revival of bank to be possible option. Thus, he submits in the light of the facts and the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 22 of Banking Regulations Act, and sub-section (3) of Section 72 the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959, petition be allowed. (f) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments in support of his submissions; 1. AKSHAY N. PATEL VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2022) 3 SCC 694. 2. GANESH BANK KURUNDWAD LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2006) SUPP 5 S.C.R. 437. 3. TATA CELLULAR VS. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (1994) SUPP 2 S.C.R. 122. 4. GENERALMANAGER RBI VS. N. VENKATESHAIAH AND OTHER BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.740/2016, DATED 02.02.2016. 5. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO., LTD AND ANOTHER VS. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA reported in (1992) 2 SCC 343. 4. In response, Sri. M.N. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 at the outset submits; (a) that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition. He insists that the petitioner has exhausted all the available remedy in the nature of filing of an appeal as against the order passed under Section 22 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, which was pending for long time and disposed of after close to 8 years of its filing taking into consideration all the grounds that sought to be urged by the petitioner. (b) He reads into the order dated 09.03.2012 at Annexure-W to submit the said order indicate the offer of revival made by the petitioner had been rejected by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI. Therefore, he submits that the arguments now canvassed on behalf of the petitioner of they not being provided an opportunity cannot be countenanced. (c) He also refers to order passed by the respondent No.3/Appellate Authority where the opportunity was provided - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 to the petitioner and that since the terms of revival submitted by them were not satisfactory, as such same was rejected. (d) He also refers to the contents of the Order dated 02.02.2004 produced at Annexure-H passed by the respondent No.1/RBI, cancelling the licence wherein at paragraphs 2(i) to (xiii) and 3 and 4, the respondent No.1/RBI has taken into consideration the enormous amount of irregularities, violation of the directives of respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI and the loss that has caused by the respondent No.5/bank. He submits that it is under these circumstances, the respondent No.1/RBI on application of its mind and after providing opportunity to the petitioner has taken a conscious decision to cancel the licence in furtherance to which the direction to the Joint Director of Co- operative Society to initiate the process of winding up was passed. (e) He submitted since petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and the petitioner had also filed an appeal unsuccessfully though, the question of now relying upon the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 22 could not arise. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 (f) He also submitted sub-section (4) of Section 72 cannot be read in isolation to contend that the Joint Registrar has discretionary power to recall or winding up of order. Such an exercise can be undertaken only upon the prior sanction of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/RBI, and that once an order of cancellation of license is granted, there is no provision under the Banking Regulations Act for recalling of the said order or granting the permission once again for revival of the bank. (g) That since bank is taken over, board is superseded, administrator is appointed, liquidator is in charge of the affairs, no individual including that of the petitioner will have anything to say in this affair. (h) Restriction imposed by the Respondent/RBI is in furtherance to the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, more particularly under Section 22 and same cannot be construed to be in violation of his fundamental right giving rise to reliance as placed by the petitioner. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. Heard. Perused the records. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 6. Points that arise for consideration are; Whether the orders dated 02.02.2004 as per Annexure -H passed by the Respondent No.1 cancelling the licence of Respondent No.5-Bank and the order dated 09.03.2012 as per Annexure - W passed of the Respondent No.3 are liable to be quashed? 7. The facts narrated above do not require reiteration. 8. Respondent No.5-Bank by order dated 05.08.2003 at Annexure-E passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and further order dated 05.08.2004 produced at Annexure-N respectively is in the process of winding up and a liquidator is in-charge of the affairs of the respondent No.5- Bank. 9. The aforesaid orders at Annexure-E dated 05.08.2003 and Annexure-N dated 05.08.2004 are preceded by a direction dated 28.06.2004 issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act. In addition Reserve Bank of India by its order dated 02.02.2004 produced at Annexure-H in exercise of power under Section 22 of the Act has cancelled the licence. The reasons for cancelling - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 the licence are reflected in the said order. For the purpose of convenience, same is extracted hereunder: RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Central Office, Urban Banks Department Garment House, 1 Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UBD.WBS.BSD(IV)/LR/10/12.03.2035/2003-04 February 02, 2004 ORDER The Cauvery Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Girinagar - Rejection of licence application to carry on banking business in India under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (As applicable to Cooperative Societies) The Cauvery Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank') was registered as a cooperative society on November 5, 1998 and it was granted license by Reserve Bank of India under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (As applicable to Cooperative Societies), (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on August 14, 1999. The second statutory inspection of the bank conducted by the Reserve Bank of India with reference to the bank's financial position as on December 31, 2001 revealed various deficiencies and irregularities in the working of the bank. The bank was issued with directions under section 35A of the Act vide our letter No.UBD.CO.BSD IV 5421/12.03.2035/2001-02 dated June 26, 2002. The bank was again inspected under section 35 of the Act, with reference to its financial position as on December 31, 2002. The inspection revealed that the financial position of the bank was highly unsatisfactory. Some of the serious deficiencies/irregularities during the course of inspection of the bank as indicated below: i) The real or exchangeable value of the paid-up capital and reserves of the bank as on December 31, 2002 was negative at Rs.221.22 lakh which had not only wiped out its own funds but had also eroded its deposits to the extent of Rs.221.22 lakh forming 27.28% of the total deposits of the bank. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 ii) The bank had defaulted in maintenance of CRR/SLR and it was levied with penalty of Rs.32 lakh which it could not pay for want of liquidity. iii) The CRAR of the bank was assessed at (-) 43.7%. iv) The bank had not made any investment on Govt/approved securities in violation of RBI directives. v) The bank had violated RBI directives by sanctioning loans in excess of exposure limits prescribed for single borrower and group borrowers. vi) The bank had violated provisions of KCS, Act, 1959 by not initiating action against defaulting members of the Board. 2. In view of the foregoing, the bank was issued with a notice vide our letter No.UBD.CO.BSDIV/SCN/36/12.03.2035/2002-03 dated August 18, 2003 to show cause as to why its licence should not be cancelled. The bank submitted its reply to our show cause notice only on November 4, 2003, indicating that it had initiated necessary action to improve its working and had made a request for grant of time of six months to rectify the defects pointed out in our show cause notice. The reply furnished by the bank was examined vis-à-vis the scrutiny conducted with reference to the bank's financial position as on June 30, 2003. The findings of the scrutiny revealed the following deficiencies: i) The bank did not comply with Section 11(1) and 22(3)(b) of BR Art. 1949 AACS) and its networth was assessed at (-) Rs.196.29 lakh as on June 30, 2003. The scrutiny of books of accounts conducted with reference to its position as on June 30, 2003 of the bank has also not shown any perceptible improvement in its financial position. ii) The CRAR of the bank deteriorated further and was assessed at (-) 63.8% as on June 30, 2003 compared to (-) 43.7% as on the date of its last inspection as on December 31, 2002. iii) In its provisional balance sheet, the bank had shown a profit of Rs.1.17 lakh. However, as per the Inspecting Officer the bank had not made adequate provision towards NPAs and interest payable on deposits. Hence the bank would have incurred net loss after taking this into account. iv) Despite imposition of directive, the bank had swapped loan accounts amounting to Rs.253.39 lakh with accrued interest against deposits placed by other UCBs. Hence the bank's - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 statement that it had recovered 50% of its loans in March is not correct. v) The bank continued to default in maintenance of CRR/SLR. Even though the bank had kept a fixed deposit of Rs.30.00 Lakh with the Apex bank the same is encumbered for the full amount. vi) The bank did not bring down the loans sanctioned to individuals/group within the exposure limit. vii) The bank did not take steps to disqualify the defaulting directors and these directors continued on the board until it was superseded. viii) The bank accepted deposits from other cooperative banks at a high rate of interest and such deposit constituted 84.7% of its total deposits as on June 30, 2003. ix) The bank had not invested in Govt/Approved securities as per RBI guidelines. x) The bank has not earned profit since its inception and made provision towards NPAs by increasing its losses which was at Rs.191.42 lakh as on June 30, 2003. xi) The bank was holding Board meetings without the quorum and the Board proceedings were not recorded properly. xii) The bank had violated RBI directive by making payments in excess of Rs.1000/- per depositor. xiii) The bank had stated that majority of the share holders of the bank were SC/ST members. However, it is observed during the scrutiny of books of accounts of the bank that it had only a small section of genuine members. The majority of share applications were not signed by members and the bank had granted membership even to minors in violation of the provision of its own bye-laws. 3. The bank has been incurring losses since its inception and its net loss stood at Rs.191.42 lakh as on the date of its scrutiny. Its networth was assessed at Rs.(-)196.29 lakh as on June 30, 2003 indicating erosion of entire share capital and a portion of its deposits. The bank has therefore not complied with sections 11(1) and 22(3)(a) of the Act. The bank is not in a position to pay penalty to RBI for its default in maintenance of CRR/SLR. There was large scale diversion of bank's funds by the promoters of the bank to their educational institutions. The gross NPAs and net NPAs of the bank works out to 96.1% and 95.7% respectively as on December 31, 2002. The factors - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 mentioned above revealed that the affairs of the bank were being conducted in manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors. 4. In view of the aforesaid serious irregularities and deficiencies, the Reserve Bank of India is satisfied that allowing the bank to carry on banking business any further would be detrimental to the interest of the present and future depositors and hence, the licence granted to the bank to conduct banking business deserves to be cancelled. Accordingly, the licence dated August 14, 1999 granted to the Cauvery Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Girinagar, Bangalore, to conduct banking business in India under Section 22 of the Act, read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is hereby cancelled. This order makes it obligatory on the part of the bank to stop conducting "banking" business within the meaning of Section 5(b) of the Act including repayment of deposits with immediate effect. A copy of this order be served to the Cauvery Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bangalore. (A.V. Sardesai) Executive Director 10. An appeal against aforesaid order was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent No.3 the Appellate Tribunal under Section Sub-section(5) of 22 of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which came to be rejected by order dated 09.03.2012 as per Annexure-W. The said order is extracted hereunder: "This is an appeal filed by Cauvery Urban Co-operative Bank, Bangalore (the bank), against the order of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 2.2.2024 cancelling the banking licence issued to the bank. 2. The matter was fixed for final hearing on 21.09.2011. The representative of the bank was present along with Shri.D.Aswathappa the learned counsel for the bank. It was submitted on behalf of the bank that the revival plan was already submitted to RBI along with 5 years audited financial statements which - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 provides the plan of the appellant to repay the institutional depositors. Further the outstanding liability of the bank is only Rs.1.63 crores and the loans and advances of the bank is Rs.3.44 crores. Hence suitable directions may be issued to RBI to consider the revival package. However it was submitted on behalf of RBI that the banking licence issued to the bank was cancelled on February 02, 2004 based on the serious irregularities in the working of the appellant including non-compliance with sections 11(1), 18, 22(3)(a) and (b) and 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (AACS). The financial statements submitted to RBI are not audited. Hence the financial statement cannot be taken into account. In the revival package, the appellant admitted the irregularities, ignorance and inexperience in running the bank. The revival package is not acceptable to RBI as there is no concrete plan for revival and the reasons on account of which the banking licence was cancelled. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties and the records placed before me. On perusal of the record it is seen that the appeal is very old and ample time was granted to the bank to prepare a revival package, showing the developments for the last eight years and file it after obtaining approval from RBI. The revival package submitted by the bank was not acceptable to RBI. As per the audit report, the total accumulated loss of the appellant was Rs.495.91 lakhs as on 31.03.2010. No documentary evidence has been submitted regarding recoveries as claimed by the appellant. The appellant was not able to give clear explanation on the issues raised by RBI regarding closure of loan account without recovering interest/penal interest, sanctioning of loan to directors/relative of the directors violating section 20 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, purchase of vehicles, payment of depositors violating the directions issued by RBI etc. Hence I am of the opinion that there is no ground for granting further time to the appellant. Accordingly I reject the appeal filed by the bank and uphold the order of RBI cancelling the banking licence issued to the bank." 11. The prime contention urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner is lack of sufficient opportunity of being - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 heard before passing the impugned order under Section 22. This is with reference to sub-section (4) of Section 22. 12. Contents of order dated 02.02.2004 at Annexure-H extracted herein above as well as the contents of order dated 09.03.2012 at Annexure-W extracted herein above would indicate that the petitioner was indeed provided with sufficient opportunity and it also indicate the proposals/plans for revival were submitted by the petitioner on behalf of respondent No.5- Bank and the same being found to be not viable and acceptable. 13. Also necessary to note Annexures-L1 to L7 the orders dated 14.05.2004, 19.07.2004, 09.09.2008, 03.03.2009, 21.07.2009, 01.02.2010 and 21.09.2011 that were passed by the Respondent No.3, appellate authority in the appeal that was filed by the petitioner against the order cancelling the licence. Perusal of the said orders indicate that the requests of the petitioner for consideration of their plan for revival of Respondent No.5- Bank has been considered not once or twice but as many times as the orders stated above. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner of they not having - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 been provided with opportunity, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.3 cannot be countenanced. 14. Further, the order dated 05.08.2004 at Annexure-N appointing the Liquidator was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.19115/2006. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 18.12.2008 which was carried in writ appeal in W.A.No.248/2009 which also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 09.04.2010 particularly in the light of pendency of the appeal before the respondent No.3, with a direction to seek relief in the said pending appeal. The said appeal has resulted in rejection vide order dated 09.03.2012 produced at Annexure-W and as extracted herein above. Consequently, the order dated 05.08.2004 at Annexure-N stands merged with the order dated 09.03.2012 at Annexure-W. Therefore, same cannot be reagitated on the premise of petitioner not having had sufficient opportunity. 15. The consequent order of appointing liquidator is as contemplated under Section 72A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 16. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner referring to sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 72 submitted that Registrar is empowered to cancel the order of winding up of the society. 17. Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 72 of the Act, reads as under: "(3) The Registrar may cancel an order for the winding up of a co-operative society, at any time, in any case where, in his opinion, the society should continue to exist. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no cooperative bank shall be wound up (or an order for winding up shall be cancelled) except with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank." 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 insisted that the petitioner cannot even seek recourse under the aforesaid provision, inasmuch as, in the instant case, the Registrar is acting pursuant to the direction issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by the Reserve Bank of India. He submits said provision of Section 72 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act under the facts of the matter is not applicable, since the order of winding up dated 02.02.2004 produced at Annexure-H is not an order passed by the Joint Registrar on his own in exercise of his power under Section 72 - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, but he is merely carrying out the directions issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-RBI. 19. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-RBI submits there is no specific provision under the Banking Regulation Act. Unless order of cancelling the licence is withdrawn or set aside by appellate authority, granting of any permission for revival would not arise. 20. Thus, in view of the aforesaid express provision, even if any revival plan has to be considered by the Registrar and if he intends to cancel order of winding up, he can only do so, subject to prior sanction of the respondent Nos.1 and 2- RBI. 21. In view of the order passed by the Reserve Bank of India as per Annexure-H and the order passed by the appellate tribunal dismissing the appeal filed against the said order, as per Annexure-W, and in the absence of petitioner pointing out any illegality or irregularity, this Court do not find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned orders. Further since this Court has found the petitioner having been provided with sufficient - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14420 WP No. 496 of 2013 opportunity do not find it necessary to delve into the mode and method adopted by the appellate authority in dismissal of the said appeal. 22. Petition fails and same is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU/SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74