Nirbhaya Mahila Welfare Association v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors.

1. The petitioner before this Court is an association of the residents of Subhash Nagar in Delhi. Respondent No.3 – State Bank of India has opened a branch in the main market of Subhash Nagar, which it is seeking to shift from Subhash Nagar to D-1, Ajay Enclave, Near Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. Pleading inconvenience and hardship to the customers on account of the proposed shifting, the petitioner is seeking a writ prohibiting shifting of the aforesaid Branch. W.P.(C) 538/2013 2013:DHC:480-DB

2. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before us a communication dated 28th December, 2012 from respondent State Bank of India, to the Chief Editor, G-Times Group of India, explaining therein the reasons for deciding to shift the branch from Subhash Nagar to D-1, Ajay Enclave, Near Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. The following are the reasons given by the Bank for shifting the said branch:- (i). Visibility of the existing branch premises is limited as it is located inside a narrow lane away from the main road. (ii). Parking space available for the customers is inadequate and residents protest against erratic parking. (iii). Branch banking area for customers is located in two floors, which is inconvenient especially for old customers. The stair case leading to the 1st floor is not safe specially for old and handicapped customers as the building is old.

3. A large number of factors are required to be taken by Bank into consideration while deciding where to open a branch. These factors may, inter alia, include availability of an appropriate premises for locating the branch, availability of adequate parking for the vehicles of staff members and the business branch is likely to fetch at a particular place, and the number of branches already functioning in the locality. These very reasons will hold good, while deciding whether to shift a Branch from its existing location or not.

4. If the Bank realizes that the location of a particular Branch is not appropriate, the same being inconvenient to the customers or not having adequate space or not having adequate parking area, it may, in its wisdom shift such a Branch to an appropriate location and the Court cannot interfere with such a commercial decision taken by the Bank. No one has a fundamental or even a legal right to have a Bank in the vicinity. Therefore, the Court cannot, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution interfere with the decision taken by the Bank in this regard.

5. If the premises where the branch is situated in a narrow lane and for this reason, is not attracting enough customers or does not have adequate parking space, no fault can be found with the decision of the Bank to shift the branch to an appropriate location. It has also come in the communication sent by the Bank that the existing premises in Subhash Nagar comprises two floors which is inconvenient to aged and handicapped customers who have to climb upto the first floor. This, to our mind, is also a relevant consideration in deciding to shift the branch from its existing location.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 30, 2013 ‘sn’