PIL Against Demonetisation: Delhi HC Declines Immediate Relief

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to pass any interim order on a PIL seeking a direction to the Centre to remove the cap on daily withdrawal of money deposited by the public in banks before demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes.

A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice V K Rao declined immediate relief to the petitioner, a businessman, on the ground that the Supreme Court is seized of the issue.

It further said that it was not aware of the proceedings before the apex court and, therefore, the petitioner should produce the copy of the order by November 25.

"Let it (the order as well as the matter) come up on Friday (November 25). Then we will decide what to do and what not to do," the bench said.

The bench's oral observations were made during a brief hearing of a plea by Ashok Sharma, who, through his counsel A Maitri, urged the court for an interim relief on the ground that the Centre's decision to put a cap on weekly withdrawal of Rs 24,000 is "affecting right to livelihood" of the people at large.

The counsel also told the judges that as the apex court has declined to withhold the petitions against demonetisation in different high courts, this court should give some interim order as the government may tomorrow again come out with new directives on withdrawal.

To this, the bench responded since it is not aware of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, it will wait for the copy of order.

The petitioner, a resident of Delhi, has urged the court to quash clause 2 (VI) of the notification by which conditions were imposed on withdrawal of money from bank accounts. "A reading of the notification shows that Clause 2 (vi) was intended for cash deposits, which were to be tendered between November 9 and December 30. This clause as well as the notification has no connection with the bank deposits, which were made prior to November 8," the plea said.

"On account of the notification, there is no normal banking transaction available, so the petitioner has been unable to carry out his business and Clause 2 (vi) of the notification has affected his right to livelihood," Sharmas lawyer submitted.