‘No community interest’: Bombay HC dismisses PIL to rename Punjab Countrywide Lender, Lender of Baroda
A general public curiosity litigation (PIL) petition trying to get alterations to the names of Punjab Countrywide Bank and Financial institution of Baroda was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
The PIL was filed searching for adjust of names of some banking companies. (File photo)
A public fascination litigation (PIL) petition in search of improvements to the names of Punjab National Bank and Lender of Baroda was dismissed by the Bombay Large Court docket.
The Bench of Main Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik found that the difficulties elevated in the petition did not consist of any general public curiosity by any means and proceeded to dismiss the plea.
“We are far more than satisfied that there is no semblance of public interest, much a lot less substantial general public desire concerned in entertaining the PIL petition. We are unsuccessful to take pleasure in as to how this PIL petition aims at redressal of legitimate public harm or general public damage,” claimed the bench.
The PIL was filed looking for a adjust of names of some banking institutions.
The petition was filed by a petitioner in individual, Onkar Sharma, who claimed to be working as a Senior Inner Auditor in Punjab National Bank (PNB) and posted in Mumbai. It was averred that the PNB was recognized on May well 19, 1894, though the Lender of Baroda was founded on July 20, 1908. Both equally banking institutions were being to begin with established up as non-public sector financial institutions but have been later on nationalised in 1969.
The petitioner claimed that the title of the financial institutions was creating confusion for a range of citizens in remote parts and they ended up continue to uncertain if these banking institutions had been regional or national/worldwide banking institutions.
The petitioner, as a result, prayed that the text ‘Punjab’ and ‘Baroda’ should not be made use of for the banks’ names.
Nevertheless, the bench explained, “In our feeling, the existing PIL petition is absolutely misconceived.” The bench also opined that the petitioner “had not pointed out any statutory embargo prohibiting these banking companies from applying the regional name. These are finally matters for thought of the administration/proficient authorities of the anxious banking companies.”
The bench appeared at a Supreme Court judgement from 2010 which elaborated on the great importance of PILs and how the courts should deal with it.
The bench then mentioned, “We are additional than pleased that none of the parameters established out by the Supreme Courtroom in the circumstance of the State of Uttaranchal (supra) are satisfied to permit us to entertain this PIL petition.”
— Ends —