Draft of Public Interest Writ Petition Against Restrictions

on Withdrawals from Bank Accounts

By Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP

We are of the opinion that Government of India and Reserve Bank of India
have no authority under law to restrict citizens and other legal persons of India
from withdrawing money from their bank accounts. This is an issue that is
independent of demonetization which is being examined by the Honourable
Supreme Court.

The assumption of authority by Government and Reserve Bank of India without

any sanction under law is a serious matter. It involves danger to our country’s
democracy and rule of law. It is the duty of citizens to resist such blatant
disregard of constitution and law by the institutions that derive their power from
constitution and law and that are supposed to uphold and protect constitution
and rule of law.

The enclosed Draft of PIL Writ Petition is a copyright of Anil Chawla Law
Associates LLP. It is, however, being offered to all citizens of India to use and
approach their relevant High Court. The draft will need to be modified minimally
for submission to your High court. The portions that need to be changed are
highlighted. Please put the name of the relevant High Court and your
(petitioner’s) details in the highlighted places and the petition will be ready for
submission. You may need the services of an advocate to do the court
formalities and also to do the pleadings. Of course, you may decide to plead
yourself without the assistance of any advocate.

Please visit Free Download section of our website www.indialegalhelp.com to

download a ZIP file that contains the WORD File containing the draft petition
and eight pdf files containing the relevant Annexures.

We expect nothing in return for the draft. We shall be obliged if you do not
erase the credit line given at the end of the petition. We shall also like if you
keep us informed of the progress of the petition. This will help us provide any
further assistance that we may be in a position to provide.

With best wishes and regards,

Anil Chawla
Advocate,
Senior Partner
Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP,
info@indialegalhelp.com

27 November 2016
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (P.I.L.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX,

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

2. Reserve Bank of India

INDEX

S.No. Description of Document Annexure Page No. of

No. the
document

01 Index -- __to__

02 Synopsis and Chronology -- __to__

of Events

03 Writ Petition with Affidavit -- __to__

04 Copy of Notification no. P/1 __to__

S.O. 3407 (E) dated
8th November 2016
published in The Gazette of
India Extraordinary no.
2652 by Respondent no. 1

05 Copy of Notification / P/2 __to__

Page No. 1
 Circular no. RBI/2016-
17/112, DCM (Plg)
No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 8th November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

06 Copy of Notification / P/3 __to__

Circular no. RBI/2016-
17/115, DCM (Plg) No.
1241/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 9th November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

07 Copy of Circular / P/4 __to__

Notification no. RBI/2016-
17/129, DCM (Plg)
No.1272/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 13th November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

08 Copy of Circular / P/5 __to__

Notification no. RBI/2016-
17/141, DCM (Plg)
No.1304/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 20th November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

09 Copy of Circular / P/6 __to__

Notification no. RBI/2016-
2017/145, DCM (Plg)
No.1320/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 21st November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

10 Copy of Circular / P/7 __to__

Notification no. RBI/2016-
17/149, DCM (Plg)
No.1346/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 22nd November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

Page No. 2
 11 Copy of Circular / P/8 __to__
Notification no. RBI/2016-
17/158, DCM (Plg) No.
1424/10.27.00/2016-16
dated 25th November 2016
by the Respondent No. 2

12 Urgent Hearing Application --- __to__

13 Vakalatnama --- __to__

Place: …………………..
…………………………
Date: ……………………. Counsel for Petitioner

Page No. 3
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (P.I.L.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

2. Reserve Bank of India

SYNOPSIS

The Petitioner is a public spirited citizen and is also aggrieved by the

Notification (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent No. 1 and by
Circulars / Notifications (Annexures P/2 to P/8) by Respondent No. 2.
The impugned notifications / circulars impose restrictions on withdrawal
of cash from bank accounts by all categories of persons. The
Respondents have deprived citizens and other legal persons of India of
their property (money) held in their respective bank accounts causing
enormous misery, hardship and inconvenience to people of India.

As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, one can be deprived of

one’s property only by a law passed either by the Parliament of Union of
India or by Legislature of a state of India. Imposing restrictions on
withdrawal of one’s own money amounts to a form of deprivation of
one’s property. Respondents have no power under any law to impose
such deprivation.

The Respondents have misused their position of power and have

exceeded the authority granted to them by the Constitution of India and
by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Hence, the indulgence and
intervention of this Honourable Court is prayed for declaration of the

Page No. 4
impugned notifications and circulars issued by the Respondents as null
and void.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

DATE EVENT

8th November 2016 Notification issued by Respondent no. 1

imposing restriction upon withdrawal of
cash from the bank accounts by limiting
the amount of withdrawal to Rs.10,000 in
a day and Rs.20,000 in a week.
The withdrawal from the Automated Teller
Machine was restricted to Rs.2000 per
day per card.

8th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 ordering banks to limit
the cash withdrawal by persons to the
limits specified in the notification issued
by the Respondent No.1.

9th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 ordering banks to limit
the cash withdrawal by persons from
ATMs up to the limit of Rs.2,000 per day
per card.

13th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 in enhancing the limit
of cash withdrawal by persons from ATMs
making it Rs.2500 per day per card and
the weekly limit of cash withdrawal was
increased to Rs.24,000.

21st November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 restricting cash
withdrawal by persons for the purpose of

Page No. 5
 wedding to Rs. 2,50,000 only if the
wedding is on any day before 31st
December 2016.

22nd November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 modifying the cash
withdrawal limits prescribed for weddings
earlier

24th November 2016 Notification / Circular issued by

Respondent No. 2 regarding the weekly
cash withdrawal limit

Place: ……………………..
………………………
Date: …………………….. Counsel for Petitioner

Page No. 6
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (P.I.L.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX

S/o ……………………………
R/o …………………………..
…………………………………
email: ………………………………

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

Through,
The Secretary,
Department of Economic Affairs,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110001

2. Reserve Bank of India,

Central Office Building,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400001
(Maharashtra)

Page No. 7
 Regular Public Interest Litigation Petition

1. Particulars of the cause/order against which the petition

is made:

(1) Date of Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy /

Decision:

a. Notification no. S.O. 3407 (E) dated

8th November 2016 published in The Gazette of
India Extraordinary no. 2652 dated
8th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 1
(Annexure P/1);

b. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/112,

DCM (Plg) No.1226/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 8th
November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/2);

c. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/115,

DCM (Plg) No. 1241/10.27.00/2016-17 dated 9th
November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/3);

d. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/129,

DCM (Plg) No.1272/10.27.00/2016-17 dated
13th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/4);

e. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/141,

DCM (Plg) No.1304/10.27.00/2016-17 dated
20th November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/5);

Page No. 8
 f. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-2017/145,
DCM (Plg) No.1320/10.27.00/2016-17 dated
21st November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/6);

g. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/149,

DCM (Plg) No.1346/10.27.00/2016-17 dated
22nd November 2016 by the Respondent No. 2
(Annexure P/7);

h. Circular / Notification no. RBI/2016-17/158,

DCM (Plg) No. 1424/10.27.00/2016-16 dated
25th November 2016 (Annexure P/8).

(2) Passed in (Case or file number) : Not Applicable

(3) Passed by (Name and designation of the Court,

Authority, Tribunal etc.): Respondent No. 1 for
Annexure P/1 and Respondent No. 2 for Annexures
P/2 to P/8.

(4) Subject-matter in brief: The Respondents have

issued the impugned notifications / circulars imposing
restrictions on withdrawal of cash from bank accounts
by all categories of persons. The Petitioner is an
aggrieved person. The Petitioner pleads that any
restrictions on withdrawal of one’s own money from
one’s own bank account amount to depriving one of
one’s property. Respondents have not referred to any
law which permits or authorizes them to deprive
Indian citizens and other persons of their property
(balances in bank accounts). In the absence of
sanction or authority of any law, the impugned
Notifications / Circulars are ultra vires of the

Page No. 9
 Constitution of India and are therefore fit to be
declared null and void.

2. The Antecedents of the Petitioner

1) That the Petitioner is ................ (give petitioner’s social

public standing/professional status and public spirited antecedents; if
the petitioner is a social group or organization, the names of the office-

bearers must be furnished).

2) The present petition under article 226 of the

Constitution of India is being filed by way of public
interest litigation and the Petitioner has no personal
interest except for the fact that the Petitioner is
personally aggrieved by the impugned notifications /
circulars in the same way that every citizen of the
country has been affected. The petition is being filed
in the interest of constitutional governance in the
country.

3) That the petitioner is filing the present petition on his

own and not at the instance of someone else. The
litigation cost, including the advocate’s fee and the
traveling expenses of the lawyers, if any, are being
borne by the petitioner himself (if not, the petitioner must

disclose the source of funds).

3. Facts in brief, constituting the cause:

(a) Respondent No. 1 has issued the notification

enclosed herewith as Annexure P/1 under section
26(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Page No. 10
 (b) Paragraphs 2(vi) and 2(viii) of the notification
enclosed herewith as Annexure P/1 read as follows:

(c) Respondent No. 2 followed up on the above-

mentioned notification issued by Respondent No. 1
and issued notifications / circulars enclosed herewith
as Annexure P/2 to P/8. In the said notifications /
circulars, the Respondent no. 2 either imposed fresh
restrictions on withdrawal of money by persons from
their own bank accounts or modified the restrictions
issued earlier by either of the Respondents.

(d) By the impugned notifications / circulars issued by the

Respondents, citizens and other legal persons of India
have been deprived of their property (money) held in
their respective bank accounts causing enormous
misery, hardship and inconvenience to them.

(e) The Petitioner is personally aggrieved by the

impugned notifications / circulars issued by the
Respondents.

(f) The matter relates to public interest.

4. Source of information

The Petitioner has obtained the impugned notifications /

circulars from official websites of the Respondents. The

Petitioner declares that he has verified that the impugned

Page No. 11
 notifications / circulars are from the official websites of the

Respondents.

5. Nature and extent of injury caused / apprehended

a. The impugned notifications / circulars have caused

enormous misery, hardship and inconvenience to

farmers, workers, businesses, industries and other

persons involved in nation’s economy.

b. Currency of a country is the blood of the body of the

country. The restrictions on currency withdrawals

have dried up the blood of the economic body of the

country.

c. International tourist arrivals have suffered due to the

restrictions imposed by the Respondents. The tourists

who have landed in the country are facing a difficult

situation thereby affecting the reputation of the

country across the globe.

d. Buying and selling in agricultural markets of the

country has reduced drastically causing immense

suffering to the farmers and their families who

constitute about 70% of the country’s population.

Page No. 12
e. Truck transport in the country is suffering since truck

owners and drivers are unable to withdraw cash from

their bank accounts to meet expenses on the road.

f. Toll collection on toll roads has suffered and the

Respondent No. 1 had to waive off the toll for

significant amount of time.

g. Most small businesses across the country including

grocers, vegetable vendors, restaurants and other

such service outlets are suffering because of a

collapse of the cash stream of their customers.

h. Migrant workers have lost their jobs and are facing a

threat to their survival.

i. Families have weddings planned for the next few

months are unable to carry out their planned

expenses due to restrictions on cash withdrawals.

j. Construction activity in the country has come to a

virtual standstill since the contractors have no cash to

pay to their workers.

k. There is almost no section of business or economic

activity that has not been affected adversely by the

impugned notifications / circulars of the Respondents.

Page No. 13
6. Issue raised was neither dealt with nor decided

The Petitioner declares that the issue raised was neither

dealt with nor decided by a Court of law at the instance of

the Petitioner or to the best of his knowledge, at the instance

of any other person.

7. Any representation etc. made

The Petitioner has made no representation etc. to any

authority or to the Respondents.

8. Grounds:

a) By the impugned Notifications / Circulars, the

Respondents have imposed restrictions on citizens’
constitutional right, granted under Article 300A, to
enjoy their own property.

b) A citizen can be deprived of his right to enjoy his

property only by a process of law.

c) It is a well-settled principle of constitutional law that

the law that can deprive a citizen of his constitutional
right under Article 300A must be one that is passed by
either the Parliament of Union of India or the
Legislature of a state of India.

d) Respondents have no power or authority under any

law to deprive the citizens of their property.

Page No. 14
e) Law making power of the Union and of the states of
the Union rests only with the Parliament and the
legislatures of the respective states. The executive
wing of the Respondent No. 1 has no power to make
any law. Same holds true for Respondent No. 2.

f) Balances held by citizens and other legal persons in

bank accounts are “property” of the respective citizens
or legal persons.

g) Imposing restrictions on withdrawal from one’s own

bank account amounts to depriving from property.

h) Impugned Notifications / Circulars issued by the

Respondents cannot be said to fall under the
definition of “authority of law”.

i) Section 26 (2) of the Act gives the Respondents the

power to declare any series of any denomination
“shall cease to be legal tender”. However, this section
of the Act (or any other section of the Act) does not
give either one or both of the Respondents to impose
restrictions on withdrawals from bank accounts.
Hence the impugned notification enclosed as
Annexure P/1 as well as all other impugned
notifications / circulars derive no legal authority from
the said sub-section of the Act (or from any other part
of the Act) as far as restrictions on withdrawals are
concerned.

j) There is no other law that the Respondents have

referred to in any of the impugned notifications.
Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the
Respondents have misused their position of power

Page No. 15
 and have exceeded the authority granted to them by
the Constitution and by the Act.

k) The Act empowers the Respondent No. 2 to regulate

the banks in the country. However, the extent of the
regulation allowed in the Act is clearly specified
therein. The sections of the Act prescribing regulation
of the banking system do not permit the Respondent
No. 2 to control or prescribe the amount of
withdrawals that an account holder may make from
his bank account.

l) The impugned notifications / circulars have hurt the

trust that is the foundation of the relationship between
a bank and its customer. If the bank could be ordered
by someone without authority of any law to withhold
withdrawal from bank accounts, the country will
become a no-trust land and will surely be worse than
what can be described as a banana republic.

m) In the absence of any authority from either the

Constitution or the Act (or from any other law), the
impugned notifications / circulars are ultra vires of the
Constitution and are fit to be declared null and void as
far as restrictions on operations of bank accounts are
concerned.

n) The impugned notifications / circulars have delivered

a body blow to the economy of the country. Allowing
any institution or constitutional authority to do so
without sanction of law will shake up the rule of law
that our country is known for. It is hence imperative
that the Respondents are duly reprimanded for their
extra-constitutional and extra-legal actions.

Page No. 16
 o) Respondents, by their extra-constitutional and illegal
actions, have done great damage to the credibility to
the country and its banks across the world. Tourists
and travelers to India are now making fun of the
official advertisement titled “Incredible India” saying
that India is truly incredible since it lacks credibility. A
country where banks have no credibility will surely be
the laughing stock of the international community.

9. Details of remedies exhausted

The Petitioner declares that he has availed all statutory and

other remedies; and that there are none available other than

approaching this Honourable Court.

10. Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation

therefor:

The cause of action first arose on 8th November 2016 when

the Respondent No. 1 published the Notification enclosed

herewith as Annexure P/1. The cause of action further arose

when the other notifications / circulas were issued by

Respondent No. 2 on subsequent dates. No delay has been

made in filing the petition.

Page No. 17
11. Relief(s) prayed for:

In views of the facts and circumstances mentioned above

and the grounds urged, the Petitioner humbly prays for the

following relief(s):-

a. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or

direction declaring the impugned notifications / circulars

as ultra vires of the Constitution and the Reserve Bank

of India Act, 1935.

b. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or

direction quashing the impugned notifications / circulars

and declaring the same to be ab initio null and void;

c. Kindly issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the

nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or

direction to the Respondents directing them to cease

and desist in future from issuing notifications / circulars

which they are not authorized by law to do;

d. Any other remedy or relief which the Honourable Court

may deem fit.

Page No. 18
12. Interim Order, if prayed for:

The Petitioner most humbly prays that operation of the

impugned notifications / circulars be stayed till the Petition is
disposed of by the Honourable Court and the Respondents
be ordered to restore status quo as it existed prior to the
impugned notifications / circulars.

13. Caveat:

That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is

received.

Place: ………………………. …………………………

Advocate for Petitioner
Date: ……………………….

Petition drafted by:

Anil Chawla Law Associates LLP
www.indialegalhelp.com

Page No. 19
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (P.I.L.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

2. Reserve Bank of India

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S.No. Descriptions of Date of Original/ Number

Document Document Copy of
Pages
01 Writ Petition with Original __Pages
Affidavit

02 Notification no. S.O. 8th Copy __Pages

3407 (E) dated November
8th November 2016 2016
published in The
Gazette of India
Extraordinary no. 2652
by Respondent no. 1

03 Notification / Circular 8th Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/112, November
DCM (Plg) 2016
No.1226/10.27.00/2016-

Page No. 20
 17 dated 8th November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

04 Notification / Circular 9th Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/115, November
DCM (Plg) No. 2016
1241/10.27.00/2016-17
dated 9th November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

05 Circular / Notification 13th Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/129, November
DCM (Plg) 2016
No.1272/10.27.00/2016-
17 dated 13th November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

06 Circular / Notification 20th Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/141, November
DCM (Plg) 2016
No.1304/10.27.00/2016-
17 dated 20th November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

07 Circular / Notification 21st Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-2017/145, November
DCM (Plg) 2016
No.1320/10.27.00/2016-
17 dated 21st November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

08 Circular / Notification Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/149,
DCM (Plg)
No.1346/10.27.00/2016-

Page No. 21
 17 dated 22nd
November 2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

09 Circular / Notification 25th Copy __Pages

no. RBI/2016-17/158, November
DCM (Plg) No. 2016
1424/10.27.00/2016-16
dated 25th November
2016 by the
Respondent No. 2

10 Urgent Hearing __Pages

Application

11 Vakalatnama 1 Page

Place: ……………………….. ……………………..

Advocate for Petitioner
Date: ………………………..

Page No. 22
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (W.I.P.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

2. Reserve Bank of India

AFFIDAVIT

I, XXXXX XXXXX, s/o ……………. ………………, aged ……., r/o

………………. ………….. …………… the Deponent do hereby solemnly
affirm as under:-

1. That I am competent to file this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying Writ Petition has been read by me and

that I have understood its contents.

3. That the facts mentioned in the Writ Petition are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and brief and that nothing material
has been concealed therein.

4. That the grounds contained in Part 8 are based on legal advice to

me and that Part 11 and 12 are Prayer.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of

paragraphs 1 to 4 of the foregoing affidavit are true to my personal
knowledge and belief and that nothing material has been concealed
therein.
Verified and signed on this …… day of …………. 2016

DEPONENT

Page No. 23
 IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

Writ Petition No. _________/ 2016 (P.I.L.)

PETITIONER: XXXXX XXXXX

Versus

RESPONDENTS: 1. Union of India

2. Reserve Bank of India

Application for Urgent Hearing

The Petitioner most humbly submits as follows:

1. The accompanying Writ Petition is submitted in a matter of

public interest in which almost every section of population is

affected.

2. Interim relief has been prayed for in the Writ Petition.

3. It will in the interest of justice to take up the accompanying

Writ Petition on urgent basis.

4. PRAYER – The Petitioner prays that the accompanying Writ

Petition is taken up for urgent hearing.

Place: ……………………….. ……………………..

Advocate for Petitioner
Date: ………………………..