I remember that couple of years back some one has filed such case in Bombay High Court. Even Supreme Court has issued directions to RBI & Bank in this regard.
In ABL International Ltd. & another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Apex Court in paragraphs 17 and 19 observed as under :
“The above judgment of Gunwant Kaur finds support from another judgment of this Court in the case of Century Spg. & Mgs. Col. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council, (1970) 1 SCC 582 wherein this Court held: (SCC p. 587 para 13) “Merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a civil suit against a public body. The questions of fact raised by the petition in this case are elementary.”
“Therefore, it is clear from the above enunciation of law that merely because one of the parties to the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the court entertaining such petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit. In the above case of Gunwant Kaur this Court even to the extent of holding that in a writ petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence can be taken. This clearly shows that in an appropriate case, the writ court has the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.”
The above observations in paragraphs 17 and 19 in the light of the fact that material averments in the writ petition and the admitted facts on record compel me to hold that in fact there was no disputed question of facts in the present writ petition. Mr.Ghare, learned counsel, for respondents 1 to 4 pressed into service the decision of Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel & ors. reported in 2006 (6) SCALE 533. The said decision is clearly distinguishable in the light of the facts available in the present petition.
Pl. also refer Order in PIL no. 4227.2006 for more details
PIL No. 4899 of 1995
The Apex Court upheld the intervention of the High Court in the case where the plot of land reserved as open space was handed over to a private party for development and building of the hospital. Even more recently, in the case of Bombay Dying & Mfg Co. Ltd Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group (2006 (3) SCC 434) the Apex Court held that in case of an executive action, the Court can look into and consider several factors, namely:-
(i) whether the discretion conferred upon the statutory authority had been properly exercised;
(ii) Whether exercise of such discretion is in consonance with the provisions of the Act;
(iii) Whether while taking such action, the executive Government had taken into consideration the purport and object of the Act;
(iv) whether the same subserved other relevant factors which would affect public in large;
(v) whether the principles of sustainable development which have become part of our constitutional law have been taken into consideration; and
(vi) whether in arriving at such a decision, both substantive due process and procedural due process had been complied with.
It is under these parameters we will have to examine the challenge raised by the petitioners to various orders noted hereinabove and also the subsequent orders passed during the pendency of this petition.