Consumer Education and Research Society vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

The petitioner is a Consumer Education and Research Society. As disclosed in the petition, the petition is filed for the benefit of members of the

general public who avail of the facility of transferring money at concessional rates by different modes such as mail trasfer, telegraphic transfer and

demand draft. According to the petitioner, this facility was available to the members of the general public since the year 1940. As amended in the

year 1975, the facility remained in force up to march 1, 1986. Thereafter, it has been withdrawn by the respondent nationalised banks. On account

of the withdrawal of this concessional facility, there is a rise in the charges levied by the banks while rendering services of mail transfer, telegraphic

transfer and transfer by demand draft. The petitioner contends that the respondents banks could not have withdrawn the facility and the

respondents including the Reserve Bank of India should be directed to continue to provide this concessional facility to all the members of the

general public. As indicated in the scheme itself and as also submitted by the petitioner, it is a facility extended to him in the past be continued for

an indefinite period. The term ""concession"" itself indicates something given not as a matter of right, but it is an act or incidence of conceding or

granting something. when something is conceded or granted to a person, the receiver thereof cannot claim it as a matter of right. In the past, when

the considerably large section of the economy was not monetised or at any rate was not forming part of the organised economic sector which

could use the banking facilities, the appropriate authority of the Government and the banks might have thought it fit to extend certain concessions to

the public so as to induce them to channelise their monetary transactions through the network of commercial banks in the country. With the

passage of time and particularly when the well organised business and industrial houses are availing of the facilities of transfer of money by different

modes like mail transfer, telegraphic transfer and demand draft, if the respondent have thought it fit to withdraw this facility to the members of the

general public, it cannot be said that the action is in any way unjust or arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation [1990] 69 CompCas 746. On the basis of this decision, it was

submitted that even if the relation between the instrumentality of the State and the members of the public is in the realm of contractual rights and

obligations, a duty is cast upon the State to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner. In that case, the Indian Oil corporation had supplied large

quantities of lubricants to the petitioner-firm for a period commencing from the year 1965 to 1983. The Indian Oil Corporation has treated the firm

as its authorised dealer for all practical purposes. Suddenly, in the year 1983, without giving any intimation, notice or hearing to the firm, the Indian

Oil Corporation discontinued the supply. In this context, the Supreme Court held that the Indian Oil Corporation being State was required to act in

a just, fair and reasonable manner. The Supreme Court has observed that for a corporation like the Indian Oil Corporation, it was not fair action

especially in view of the monopolistic nature of the power of the Corporation"". In that context, the Supreme Court observed that when the State

acts in its administrative capacity and enters into a contract under article 298 of the Constitution, it is required to act reasonably and fairly and not

arbitrarily. Even after these observations, the Supreme Court directed that the Indian Oil Corporation should consider the case of the petitioner in

such a way that it inspires confidence in the petitioner. In that instant case, there is no question of a contract between the general members of the

public and the respondent banks. The respondents-banks have not taken any abrupt and arbutrary action so as to disrupt the working of the

general members of the public. some charges are being levied for providing banking services in respect of mail transfer, telegraphic transfer and

demand draft facility. On account of levy of such charges no big business house or industrial house has suffered. As far as the ordinary members of

the public are concerned, they would have to resort to such facilities only on a few occcasions. As indicated hereinabove, no member of the

general public can claim as of right that the facility extended by way of concession be continued indenfinitely. The aforesaid decision relied upon by

learned counsel for the petitioner is of on help to the petitioner.

Be it noted that though nationalised, all the respondent banks except the Reserve Bank of India are commercial banks also. These banks are

required to run their activities on commercial lines. As disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply filed by Indian Overseas Bank (page 125 of the

Compilation) the cost per voucher in different modes of transfer of money has considerably increased. Having regard to the overall consideration

of the case, we do not find that the rates at which the charges are levied for different types of facilities can be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary.

No case for entertaining the petition under article 226/227 of Constitution of India is made out.

It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi inas-much as the cause which the petitioner seeks to espouse does not really concern

the ignorant and illiterate group of people who cannot assert their rights and obtain justice or may not be in a position to fight injustice. Prima facie,

there appears to be substance in this contention. The facilities provided by commercial banks like the respondents of transfer of money by different

modes such as mail transfer, telegraphic transger and transfer by demand draft would be availed of largely by the organised sector of the economy.

This organised sector of the economy mainly includes all big business houses and industrial houses, big transfers and businessmen. These people

are certainly capable of taking care of their rights. As far as the general public who may have to avail of facility of transfer of money by the

aforesaid mode is concerned, they may have to resort to this facility only occasionally. Even if we were to entertain the petition, it would in

substance be a petition for and on behalf of big business and industrial houses who largely avail of the banking facilities for transfer of money by the

aforesaid modes. However, we do not express any opinion, as regards the petitioner''s locus standi to file the petition and we make it clear that we

do not reject the petition on this ground. In our opinion, the members of the general public cannot claim as a matter of right that the concessional

facility which was extended in after march 1, 1986, for the facilities of different modes of transfer of money cannot be said to be unreasonable and

/or arbitrary so as to call for interference in exercise of our power under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence the petition is rejected.

Notice discharged.