http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 20  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  106 of 2001

PETITIONER: Federal Bank Ltd.                                

RESPONDENT: Sagar Thomas & Ors.                             

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/09/2003

BENCH: Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J.

               The respondent no.1 Sagar Thomas was working as a  Branch Manager in Karunagappally branch of the appellant Bank,  namely, the Federal Bank, having its registered office at Alwaye, Kerala.   He was, however, suspended on 29.5.1982, since a disciplinary enquiry  was ordered into some charges against him for having exceeded his  authority in grant of loans and advances to different parties.  The inquiry  officer found him guilty of the charges and ultimately punishment of  dismissal was awarded to the respondent.                  The respondent no.1 challenged the order of his dismissal by  filing a writ petition in the High Court.  A preliminary objection about  maintainability of writ petition seems to have been taken, in defence by  the Federal Bank, saying that it is a private bank and not a State or its   agency or instrumentality, within the meaning of Article 12 of the  Constitution of India, hence a writ petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution is not maintainable against it.  The learned single Judge,  however, found that the Federal Bank performs  public duty and observed  thus: "As per statutes, the Reserve Bank and the Central  Government exercise all pervading functional, fiduciary  and managerial control over the banking industry.  Every  banking company is duty bound to carry on banking  business as per the banking policy under stringent control  of the Reserve Bank in the interest of banking system or  in the interest of monetary stability of sound economic  growth, having due regard to the interest of the  depositors.  The activities carried on by the bank are vital  to public interest and have potential to affect the socio- economic development and growth of the nation.  Banking companies are therefore, public institutions,  accepting deposits from public, financial assistance from  the State through its agencies/instrumentalities, for the  purpose of lending or investment, pursuing banking  policy and engaged in matters of high public interest or  performing public functions, ensuring monetary stability,  sound economic growth, equitable allocation of various  funds to efficient use, for the promotion and growth of  economy and welfare of the State.  The first respondent  is, thus, performing a public duty and a positive  obligation towards its employees and customers exists.   Therefore, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction."

Ultimately the order passed by the learned single Judge is : "....In the light of the above decisions of the Apex Court,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 20  

I can very well find that the Federal Bank Ltd., is  performing public duty and as such it comes under the  definition of ’other authority’ within the meaning of  Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such the  writ petition is maintainable before this Court."

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge, the  appellant preferred a writ appeal but  referring to a decision of this Court  in U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra  Bhan Dubey & Ors. , the Division Bench, observed that in an identical  fact situation it was held that writ application would be maintainable,   minor distinctions on facts, here and there, would not make the aforesaid  decision inapplicable to scheduled banks.  With such observations the  appeal was dismissed providing that the learned single Judge shall decide  writ petition on merits.  The Federal Bank Ltd. has preferred this appeal,  against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.                 Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, so as to  indicate the structure of the appellant, submits that the Federal Bank Ltd.  is a ’company’ incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, now  replaced by the Companies Act, 1956. Its activities are regulated by the  provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.  The entire shareholding  of the company is held by private individuals and entities. The finances  of the banks are raised by its own resources and efforts, and the profits of  the bank are utilized by the bank for its own purposes.  It does not  perform any sovereign function nor does it exercise any authority over a  third person.  The nature of the activity of the bank is that of a  commercial undertaking which receives deposits from the individuals and  advances loans and performs other ancillary monetary transactions.  The  management of the bank is in the hands of the Board of Directors.  There  are 10 Directors, out of which 7 are selected by the General Body of the  shareholders.  Two members are co-opted by the Board of Directors and  one of them is nominated by the Reserve Bank  of India.  The Board of  Directors exercise the powers of superintendence and control over the  bank.  The bank is, therefore, merely a private limited company; it is  neither a ’State’ nor any ’authority’ within the meaning of Article 12 of  the Constitution nor it is amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court.   It is also the case of the appellant bank that services of an employee or an  officer of a private body, cannot be imposed or thrust upon it nor a relief  of reinstatement can be granted.  In this connection,  the appellant has  referred to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, which are as follows: "i)     a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ,  order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 Enquiry  Report and P6 and P7 orders of the disciplinary  authority and the Board of Directors as illegal and  unsustainable in law;

ii)     a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ,  order or direction commanding the respondents to  reinstate the petitioner with all wages and  increments in the salary applicable to him as if he  had continued in service from the date of his  suspension;

iii)    any other appropriate writ, order or direction as  this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary on  the facts and in the circumstances of the case and  allow this petition with all costs."

In the light of the prayer made for issue of a writ of certiorari  for  quashing of inquiry report and the order of punishment and further for  issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction for  reinstatement of the petitioner with all wages and increments etc.  as if,  he had been continued in service,  a plea in reply has been raised by the  appellant that it being a private body incorporated under the Companies  Act, it is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court.  It is in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 20  

above background that the learned Single Judge considered the matter  and held that the Federal Bank Limited  is  performing public duty,         as such it is covered under the expression of ’other authority’, within the  meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, hence the writ petition is  maintainable  before the High Court.  The question thus,  which falls for consideration is as to whether  the appellant bank is a private body or  falls within the definition of the  State or local  or other authorities under the control of the Government.   A body or organization which is an instrumentality or agency of the State  or a company owned and controlled  by the State are all included in the  expression "the State".  If it is found that the petitioner falls within the  later category,  there would be no  hurdle  in  holding  that such a body or  organization would undoubtedly be amenable to the writ jurisdiction  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  On the other hand, if it is  found that the appellant is a private body in that event it may have to be  examined whether a writ petition would be maintainable or not and the  extent to which such powers can be exercised.    In support of their respective contentions   learned counsels  placed reliance upon certain decisions of this Court as well as on some  decisions of the High Court.   On behalf of the appellant, a decision in the case of Pradeep  Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors ,  decided by a 7 Judges Bench has been referred.  The majority judgment  considered a catena of  decisions on the point and it has been observed in  paragraph 25 of the judgment : "The tests propounded by Mathew, J. in  Sukhdev Singh  were elaborated in Ramana  and were reformulated  two years later by a Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia .  What may have  been technically characterized as obiter dicta in Sukhdev Singh (supra)  and Ramana (supra) (since in both cases the "authority" in fact involved  was a statutory corporation), formed the ratio decidendi of Ajay Hasia  (supra)".  Thereafter the court has extracted  para 11, at page 737-38 of  the case of Ajay Hasia (supra),  as follows : "The concept of  instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a  corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or  society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a  consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is  an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the  meaning of the expression ’authority’ in Article 12."  It is then observed  that Ramana’s case (supra) noted with approval in Ajay Hasia (supra)  and quoted the tests laid down in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) at page  737 in para 9.  It reads as follows : "(1)    One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of  the corporation is held by Government, it would  go a long way towards indicating that the  corporation is an instrumentality or agency of  Government. (SCC p.507, para 14)

(2)     Where the financial assistance of the State is so  much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the  corporation, it would afford some indication of  the corporation being impregnated with  governmental character. (SCC p.508, para 15)

(3)     It may also be a relevant factor .. whether the  corporation enjoys monopoly status which is  State-conferred or State-protected (SCC p.508,  para 15)

(4)     Existence of deep and pervasive State control  may afford an indication that the corporation is a  State agency or instrumentality. (SCC p.508, para  15)

(5)     If the functions of the corporation are of public  importance and closely related to governmental

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 20  

functions, it would be a relevant factor in  classifying the corporation as an instrumentality  or agency of Government. (SCC p.509, para 16)

(6)     ’Specifically, if a department of Government is  transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong  factor supportive of this inference’ of the  corporation being an instrumentality or agency of  Government. (SCC p.510, para 18)"

This Court has observed in paragraph 31 as follows : "The tests to determine whether  a body falls  within the definition of "State" in Article 12 laid  down in Ramana (supra) with the Constitution  Bench imprimatur in Ajay Hasia (supra) form the  keystone of the subsequent jurisprudential  superstructure judicially crafted on the subject  which is apparent from a chronological  consideration of the authorities cited."

After considering a number of decisions it has been observed in para 40  of  Pradeep  Kumar Biswas (supra) as follows :  "The picture that ultimately emerges is that the  tests formulated in Ajay Hasia (supra) are not a  rigid set of principles so that if a body falls within  any one of them it must, ex hypothesi, be   considered to be a State within the meaning of  Article 12.  The question in each case would be -  whether in the light of the cumulative facts as  established, the body is financially, functionally  and administratively dominated by or under the  control of the Government.  Such control must be  particular to the body in question and must be  pervasive.  If this is found then the body is a State  within Article 12.  On the other hand, when the  control is merely regulatory whether under statute  or otherwise, it would not serve to make the body a  State."

The appellant then refers to a decision in Bank of Baroda Ltd.  vs. Jeewan Lal Mehrotra , which is a decision of  a three  Judge Bench, wherein it has been laid down that a contract of  service could not be enforced on a private employee.  Needless  to say that the case is related to the services of an employee of a  Scheduled bank.  Our attention has been particularly drawn to  paragraph 3 of the judgment where it is observed :  ".....The law as settled by this court is that no  declaration to enforce a contract of personal  service will be normally granted.  The well  recognized exceptions to this rule are (1) where a  public servant has been dismissed from service in  contravention of Article 311, (2)where re- instatement is sought of a dismissed worker under  the industrial law by labour or industrial tribunals,  (3) where a statutory body has acted in breach of a  mandatory obligation imposed by statute...."   

               However, so far the above proposition is concerned, learned  counsel for the respondent submitted that the point relates to the merits of  the matter which is yet to be gone into by the learned Single Judge in  case it is found that a writ petition is maintainable.  U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 20  

(supra) has been relied upon by the Division Bench while passing the  impugned order dismissing the appeal.  We may examine the position as  involved in that  case in some  detail. It is registered as a Co-operative  society under the provisions of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Act.   While holding it to be an instrumentality of the State, the Court took note  of the fact that though  registered as a co-operative society, it was  constituted under the provisions of the U.P.Co-operative Land  Development Bank Act, 1964.  The Managing Director and the Chief  General Manager of the Bank are officials of the State, who are at the  helms  of the affairs of the Bank.  The service rules for the employees  and officers of the Bank were framed by the State Government in  exercise of powers under Section 30 of the U.P.Co-operative Land  Development Bank Act, 1964.  The rules are called the U.P.Co-operative  Land Development Banks Rules, 1971, which lay down the conditions of  services of the employees.  The Institutional Service Boards constituted  under Section 122 of the Co-operative Societies Act has also framed  service rules according to which dismissal of an employee can be ordered  only after its approval by the Institutional Service Board.  The U.P.State  Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. is the only bank constituted  under the provisions of the U.P.Co-operative Land Development Bank  Act and there cannot be any other State level Land Development Bank  for the whole of the State. Apart from the fact that the Bank had  exclusive jurisdiction over the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh,  the  other Land Development Banks could also be made members of the  U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank, in any number, as the  Registrar of the Co-operative Societies may deem it necessary. It is  further found that the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, U.P. is the  trustee for the purpose of securing the fulfillment of the obligations of the  State Land Development Bank to the holders of debentures issued by the  Board of Directors.  The Board of Directors are entitled to issue  debentures from time to time with the previous sanction of the State  Government and the trustee, against the unconditional guarantee by the  State Government for the repayment in full of the principal and  interest  thereon, or on the security of mortgages, charges or hypothecations etc.   The State Government constitutes a Guarantee Fund under Section 9 of  the Act for the purpose of meeting losses that might accrue on account of  loans advanced by the Land Development Banks.  The Guarantee  Fund  is maintained by the Finance Department of the State Government.  On  the basis of the facts noted above, the Court took the view that the  U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., though registered  as a Co-operative society, is an instrumentality of the State and its  employees have a statutory protection under the statutory rules.                  It is quite apparent that the decision in the case of U.P.State  Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (supra) would in no way  be applicable to the case in hand. The participation and control of the  State in the whole activity of the U.P.Land Development Bank Ltd. is all  pervasive.  Its officers head the institution.  U.P.Land Development Bank  is constituted as the only State level Bank in the State.  Under the  statutory provision there cannot be any other Land Development Bank  at  the State level.  The government guarantees repayment in the event of  losses suffered by the Bank and with the approval of the State, the Bank  may also issue debentures.  To cap it all the service conditions of the  employees are governed by the statutory rules.  It is submitted by the  appellant that this case will have no application to the present case and  the same has been wrongly followed and relied upon by the High Court  to dismiss the appeal.                 Shri Rajinder Sachar, learned senior counsel appearing for  the respondent, refers to a Constitution Bench decision in All India Bank  Employees’  Association Vs.  National  Industrial Tribunal & Ors. .   

Our attention has been particularly drawn to the observations made at  page 299 of the report wherein it is observed as follows:- "....If it was not the Reserve Bank of India, the  only other authority that could be entrusted with  the function would be the Finance Ministry of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 20  

Government of India and that department would  necessarily be guided by the Reserve Bank having  regard to the intimate knowledge which the  Reserve Bank has of the banking structure of the  country as a whole and of the affairs of each bank  in particular......".

It has been referred to indicate that the control of the Reserve Bank of  India over all the banks would be as if the control is in place of  Finance  Ministry, Government of India.                 A reference has then been made to Air India Statutory  Corporation & Ors. Vs. United Labour Union & Ors. ,  a decision of  a three Judge Bench.  It has been held that the industry carried on by Air  India under authority of central government would involve public law  element even though its activity may be commercial in nature.  It was  held that the Air India was being run by the Airport Authority of India of  the Central Government and there was element of deep and pervasive  governmental control.  Initially it was a statutory authority under the  International Airports Authority of India Act, 1971.  Later it was  amalgamated with National Airports Authority and thereafter it is  constituted as a Company under the Companies Act.  In that context, it  has been held,  if the company is run wholly or partially by the share  capital floated from public exchequer, it gives indication of its control by  the appropriate government. On consideration of a number of decisions  on the point, the Court found the following principles which may be  considered, for coming to a conclusion whether any public element is  involved or not, the paragraph 26 of the decision,  reads as under :  "(1)    The  constitution of the corporation or  instrumentality or agency or corporation  aggregate or corporation sole is not of sole  material relevance to decide whether it is by  or under the control of the appropriate  Government under the Act.

(2)     If it is a statutory corporation, it is an  instrumentality or agency of the State.  If it  is a company owned wholly or partially by a  share capital, floated from public exchequer,  it gives indicia that it is controlled by or  under the authority of the Appropriate  Government.  

(3)     In commercial activities carried on by a  corporation established by or under the  control of the appropriate government  having protection under Articles 14 and  19(2), it is an instrumentality or agency of  the State.

(4)     The State is a service corporation.  It acts  through its instrumentalities, agencies or  persons - natural or juridical.

(5)     The governing power, wherever located,  must be subject to the fundamental  constitutional limitations and abide by the  principles laid in the Directive Principles.

(6)     The framework of service regulations made  in the appropriate rules or regulations should  be consistent with and subject to the same  public law, principles and limitations.

(7)     Though the instrumentality, agency or  person conducts commercial activities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 20  

according to business principles and are  separately accountable under their  appropriate bye-laws or Memorandum of  Association, they become the arm of the  Government.

(8)     The existence of deep and pervasive State  control depends upon the facts and  circumstances in a given situation and in the  altered situation it is not the sole criterion to  decide whether the agency or  instrumentality or persons is by or under the  control of the appropriate Government.

(9)     Functions of an instrumentality, agency or  person are of public importance following  public interest element.

(10)    The instrumentality, agency or person must  have an element of authority or ability to  effect the relations with its employees or  public by virtue of power vested in it by law,  Memorandum of Association or bye-laws or  Articles of Association.

(11)    The instrumentality, agency or person  renders an element of public service and is  accountable to health and strength of the  workers, men and women, adequate means  of livelihood, the security for payment of  living wages, reasonable conditions of work,  decent standard of life and opportunity to  enjoy full leisure and social and cultural  activities to the workmen.

(12)    Every action of the public authority, agency  or instrumentality or the person acting in  public interest or any act that gives rise to  public element should be guided by public  interest in exercise of public power or action  hedged with  public  element and is open to  challenge.  It must meet the test of  reasonableness, fairness and justness.

(13)    If the exercise of the power is arbitrary,  unjust and unfair, the public authority,  instrumentality, agency or the person acting  in public interest, though in the field of  private law, is not free to prescribe any  unconstitutional conditions or limitations in  their actions."

One of the important factors to be considered is, if it is a statutory  corporation, an instrumentality or agency of the State or a company  owned wholly or partially by a share capital floated from public  exchequer, it gives indicia that it is controlled by and under the authority  of the Appropriate Government.  We find that it is this factor which  brings in public element.  Paragraph 61 of the judgment reads:- "The legal right of an individual may be founded  upon a contract or a statute or an instrument  having the force of law.  For a public law remedy  enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution,  the action of the authority needs to fall in the realm  of public law - be it a legislative act of the State,  an executive act of the State or an instrumentality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 20  

or a person or authority imbued with public law  element. The question requires to be determined in  each case.  However, it may not be possible to  generalise the nature of the action which would  come either under public law remedy or private  law field nor is it desirable to give exhaustive list  of such actions.......The distinction between  public law and private law remedy has now  become thin and practically obliterated."

Shri Sachar then referred to a decision of this Court in Andi  Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti  Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. Vs. V.R.Rudani & Ors.  case.  It has  been held in this case that the college in question which was managed by  a trust registered under the Bombay Trusts Act was amenable to writ  jurisdiction and a direction could be issued to the institution to make the  payment of arrears of salary and other benefits to the teacher. It is further  submitted that if a private body discharges a public duty it would be  amenable to the writ jurisdiction.  Paragraph 17 of the judgment has been  particularly referred to, which reads as under : "There, however, the prerogative writ of  mandamus is confined only to public authorities to  compel performance of public duty. The ’public  authority’ for them mean every body which is  created by statute - and whose powers and duties  are defined by statute. So government departments,  local authorities, police authorities, and statutory  undertakings and corporations, are all ’public  authorities’.  But there is no such limitation for our  High Courts to issue the writ ’in the nature of  mandamus’.  Article 226 confers wide powers on  the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of  prerogative writs.  This is a striking departure from  the English Law. Under Article 226, writs can be  issued to "any person or authority".  It can be  issued "for the enforcement of any of the  fundamental rights and for any other purpose".

Shri Sachar has also stressed upon the observation made in the later part  of para 19  and para 20 where it has been observed:  ".....Any attempt to equate the scope of the power  of the High Court under Article 226 of the  Constitution with that of the English courts to issue  prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary  procedural restrictions grown over the years in a  comparatively small country like England with a  unitary form of government into a vast country like  India functioning under a federal structure....."

        Para 20        "....The words "any person or authority" used in  Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only  to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the  State. They may cover any other person or body  performing public duty. ......What is relevant is  the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The  duty must be judged in the light of positive  obligation owed by the person or authority to the  affected party....."     While making his submissions in reply,  the appellant  referred to paragraph 15  of the above judgment wherein it has been  observed that if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus  can be issued.  It is further observed that if the management of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 20  

college is purely a private body with no public duty, mandamus would  not lie. But it has been held that the college run by a private trust was  affiliated to the university to which public  money is paid as government  aid.  It is then observed : "...Public money paid as government aid plays a  major role in the control, maintenance and working  of educational institutions.  The aided institutions  like government institutions discharge public  function by way of imparting education to  students.  They are subject to the rules and  regulations of the affiliating University.  Their  activities are closely supervised by the University  authorities.  Employment in such institutions,  therefore, is not devoid of any public character.  So  are the service conditions of the academic staff. ....  The service conditions of the academic staff are,  therefore, not purely of a private character.  It has  super-added protection by University decisions  creating a legal right-duty relationship between the  staff and the management.  When there is  existence of this relationship, mandamus cannot be  refused to the aggrieved party."

On this basis, it is submitted in reply that those features by reason of  which it has been held that a writ of mandamus would lie against a  private management, are not present in the case in hand.  A reference   to  para 12 of the Andi Mukta’s case  (supra) has been made,   where it has  been held that no writ would issue where  dismissal was not in violation  of any statutory provision.  No reinstatement could be ordered.   Shri Sachar then refers to Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs.  State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.   a Constitution Bench judgment.  In  reference to para 79 it is submitted that educational institutions discharge  public duties irrespective of the fact they receive aid or not.  The absence  of aid does not detract from the public nature of the duty.  The  submission, therefore, is that even though a body or institution may be a  private body but if the duty that it discharges  is that of a public nature, a  writ would lie. In this connection Life Insurance Corporation of India &  Anr. vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors . also has  been referred to, which in turn refers to Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi  Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ,     holding   that    arbitrariness,   even    in  contractual obligation of public character is violative of Article 14 of the  Constitution.   the Court   held   that rates of premium must be reasonable  and acceptable.  It cannot   be   unjust   and   excessive.  Thus  the   touchstone  of  test  is the reasonableness and non-arbitrariness of the  action even in the contractual matters of the State or its agencies and  instrumentalities.                 The appellant in reply also referred to The Praga Tools  Corporation Vs. Shri C.A.Imanual & Ors. , where it was held that a  company registered under the Companies     Act   is    neither   statutory   nor    any public duty is imposed on it by any statute in respect of which  enforcement would be sought by means of a mandamus.  Mandamus lies  to secure the purpose of a public or statutory duty.  No mandamus or  order of reinstatement of an office which is essentially of a private  character can be issued. A mandamus can be issued to compel the official  of a society to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the  society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations  to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorizing their  undertakings.

               Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli &  Ors. Vs. Lakshmi Narain & Ors. , was also referred to on the  proposition that contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be  enforced.                 From the decisions referred to above, the position that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 20  

emerges is that  a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of  India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Govt); (ii) Authority; (iii)  a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; ( v) a  company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body   run  substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging  public duty or positive obligation of public nature (viii) a person or a  body under liability to discharge any function  under any Statute,  to  compel it to perform such a statutory function.         Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn our  attention to the various provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act,  1934 (for short ’the RBI Act’), the Banking Regulation Act, 1941 and the  Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 so as to emphasise  that there is deep and all pervasive statutory control and the control of the  Central Government over the Scheduled Banks.  It is submitted that these  banks discharge functions of public nature and owe the statutory  responsibilities, hence there is an element of public law, involved in the  activities of the Bank.  Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act  provides for Licensing of banking companies.  No company can carry on  banking business in India unless it holds a licence issued by the Reserve  Bank subject to such conditions as may be imposed. Before issuing any  licence  the Reserve Bank may satisfy itself about the conditions as laid  down under sub-section (3) of Section 22 as to whether the company  fulfills those conditions or not.                  The appellant is one of the Scheduled Banks, definition of  which as provided in the Reserve Bank of India Act, has been referred to   which says :  "2(e) scheduled bank" means a bank included in  the Second Schedule;"

Sub-section (6) of Section 42 of the RBI Act has been referred to indicate  the control which is exercised by the Reserve Bank of India on the  banking companies.  It reads as under : "(6) The Bank shall, save as hereinafter provided,  by notification in the Gazette of India, -

(a) direct the inclusion in the Second Schedule of  any bank not already so included which carries on  the business of banking [in India] and which -

(i)     has a paid-up capital and reserve of an  aggregate value of not less than five lakhs of  rupees, and

(ii)    satisfies the Bank that its affairs are not  being conducted in a manner detrimental to  the interests of its depositors, and

(iii)   [is a State co-operative bank or a company]  as defined [section 3 of the Companies Act,  1956 (1 of 1956), or an institution notified  by the Central Government in this behalf] or  a corporation or a company incorporated by  or under any law in force in any  place[outside India];

(b) direct the exclusion from that Schedule of any  scheduled bank, -

(i)     the aggregate value of whose paid-up capital  and reserves becomes at any time less than  five lakhs of rupees, or

(ii)    which is, in the opinion of the Bank after  making an inspection under section 35 of the  Banking  Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949),

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 20  

conducting its affairs to the detriment of the  interests of its depositors, or

(iii)   which goes into liquidation or otherwise  ceases to carry on banking business: xxx                             xxx             xxx

               The Preamble of the RBI Act has also been referred to,  which reads as follows : "An Act to Constitute a Reserve Bank of India :  Whereas it is expedient to constitute a Reserve  Bank of India to regulate the issue of Bank notes  and the keeping of reserves with a view to securing  monetary stability in [India] and generally to  operate the currency and credit system of the  country to its advantage;         And whereas in the present disorganization  of the monetary systems of the world it is not  possible to determine what will be suitable as a  permanent basis for the Indian monetary system;         But whereas it is expedient to make  temporary provision on the basis of the existing  monetary system, and to leave the question of the  monetary standard best suited to India to be  considered when the international monetary  position has become sufficiently clear and stable to  make it possible to frame permanent measures".

Section 46-A of the Banking Regulation Act provides as under :- "46A. Chairman, director, etc., to be public  servants for the purposes of Chapter IX of the  Indian Penal Code.- [Every Chairman who is  appointed on a whole-time basis, managing  director, director, auditor] liquidator, manager and  any other employee of a banking company shall be  deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of  Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]

A reference is also made to Section 35 of the Banking Regulation Act  which provides for inspection of any banking company and its books of  accounts by the Reserve Bank on the direction issued by the Central  Government.  Under sub-section (1A) it is provided that without  prejudice to sub-section (1) it may at any time cause a scrutiny to be  made by any one or more of its officers, of the affairs of  any banking  company.  The report of the inspection or the scrutiny are to be furnished  to the banking company. Sub-section (4) of Section 35 provides as under: "(4) The Reserve Bank shall, if it has been directed  by the Central Government to cause an inspection  to be made, and may, in any other case, report to  the Central Government on any inspection [or  scrutiny] made under this section, and the Central  Government, if it is of opinion after considering  the report that the affairs of the banking company  are being conducted to the detriment of the  interests of its depositors, may, after giving such  opportunity to the banking company to make a  representation in connection with the report as, in  the opinion of the Central Government, seems  reasonable, by order in writing -

(a)     prohibit the banking company from  receiving fresh deposits;

(b)     direct the Reserve Bank to apply under  section 38 for the winding up of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 20  

banking company:

Provided that the Central Government may defer,  for such period as it may think fit, the passing of  an order  under this sub-section, or cancel or  modify any such order, upon such terms and  conditions as it may think fit to impose."

Section 35-A empowers the Reserve Bank to give directions, which reads  as under : "35A. Power of the Reserve Bank to give  directions.- (1) Where the Reserve Bank is  satisfied that :-

(a)     in the [public interest]; or  

[(aa)  in the interest of banking policy; or]

(b)     to prevent the affairs of any banking  company being conducted in a manner  detrimental to the interests of the depositors  or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of  the banking company; or

(c)     to secure the proper management of any  banking company generally,  

it is necessary to issue directions to banking  companies generally or to any banking company in  particular, it may, from time to time, issue such  directions as it deems fit, and the banking  companies or the banking company, as the case  may be, shall be bound to comply with such  directions.

(2)     The Reserve Bank may, on representation  made to it or on its own motion, modify or cancel  any direction issued under sub-section (1), and in  so modifying or cancelling any direction may  impose such conditions as it thinks fit, subject to  which the modification or cancellation shall have  effect."

Section 36 of the Banking Regulation Act which enumerates further  powers and functions of Reserve Banks has also been referred to. The  relevant part of Section 36 reads as under : "36. Further powers and functions of  Reserve  Banks.- (1)The  Reserve Bank may -

(a)     caution or prohibit banking companies or any  banking company in particular against entering  into any particular transaction or class of  transactions, and generally give advice to any  banking company;

(b)     xxx             xxx             xxx

(c)     xxx             xxx             xxx

(d)             xxx                     xxx

(i)     require the banking company to call a  meeting of its directors for the purpose of  considering any matter relating to or arising  out of the affairs of the banking company; or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 20  

require an officer of the banking company to  discuss any such matter with an officer of  the Reserve Bank;

(ii)    xxx             xxx

(iii)   xxx             xxx (iv)    appoint one or more of its officers to  observe the manner in which the affairs of  the banking company or of its offices or  branches are being conducted and make a  report thereon;

(v)     require the banking company to make,  within such time as may be specified in the  order, such changes in the management as  the Reserve Bank may consider necessary.]

(2) &   ( 3 ) xxx               xxx"

Section 36AA deals with Power of Reserve Bank to remove managerial  and other persons from office. The relevant part of the provision is  quoted below : "(1) Where the Reserve bank is satisfied that in the  public interest or for preventing the affairs of a  banking company being conducted in a manner  detrimental to the interests of the depositors or for  securing the proper management of any banking  company it is necessary so to do, the Reserve Bank  may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by  order, remove from office, with effect from such  date as may be specified in the order, [any  chairman, director,] chief executive officer (by  whatever name called) or other officer or  employee of the banking company.

(2) to (5)  xxx                 xxx

(6) Where an order under sub-section (1) has been  made, the Reserve Bank may, by order in writing,  appoint a suitable person in place of [the chairman  or director] or chief executive officer or other  officer or employee who has been removed from  his office under that sub-section, with effect from  such date as may be specified in the order.

(7) to (8) xxxx         xxxx"

Section 36AB of the Banking Regulation Act empowers the Reserve  Bank to appoint additional directors of the banking company in the  interest of the company or its depositors.  Sub-section (1) reads as under : "36AB. Power of Reserve Bank to appoint  additional directors.- (1) If the Reserve Bank is  of [opinion that in the interest of banking policy or  in the public interest or] in the interests of the  banking company or its depositors it is necessary  so to do, it may, from time to time by order in  writing, appoint, with effect from such date as may  be specified in the order, one or more persons to  hold office as additional directors of the banking  company:

xxx                     xxxx"

Section 36AE has also been referred to which empowers the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 20  

Government to acquire undertakings of banking companies in the  interests of the depositors, the banking policy or for the better provision  of credit generally or of credit to any particular section of the  community  or in any particular area.  Lastly, our attention has been drawn to  provisions contained in Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act which  empowers the Reserve Bank to apply to Central Government for  suspension of business by a banking company and to prepare scheme of  reconstitution of amalgamation of a banking company.                 In view of the aforesaid provisions it is submitted that the  control of the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government is all  pervasive over the banking companies, they can cause an inspection to be  made, can make scrutiny of the working and accounts of the banking  company, can remove the Chairman or appoint additional directors,  the  functioning of the banking company can also be suspended, the  undertaking can also be acquired.  It is further submitted that the Reserve  Bank of India has been constituted to regulate issue of bank notes and for  keeping reserves with a view to secure and maintain monetary stability in  the country.  It is with that end in view that powers have been vested in  the Reserve Bank of India to keep proper check on the working and  functioning of the banking companies as also in the interest of the  depositors and the own interest of the banking company. Such a nature of  control indicates that the Banking Companies discharge functions of  public nature.                  As against the submission made on behalf of the respondent  regarding control of the Reserve Bank of India over the banking  companies, the appellant submits that such measures as indicated by  reference to the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act are only  regulatory in nature.  Such regulatory control is also exercised over other  companies as well, registered under the Companies Act, 1956.  In this  connection, a reference has been made to Section 233A of the Companies  Act which empowers the Central Government to direct special audit of  the companies in certain eventualities.  For example as indicated in sub- clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 233A, which reads as  under : "233A. (1) Where the Central Government is of  the opinion -

(a)     that the affairs of any company are not  being managed in accordance with sound  business principles of prudent  commercial practices; or

(b)     that any company is being managed in a  manner likely to cause serious injury or  damage to the interests of the trade,  industry or business to which it pertains;  or

(c)     that the financial position of any  company is such as to endanger its  solvency;........."

The report of the special audit is to be submitted to the Central  Government by the Chartered Accountants deputed for special audit. The  special auditor, in the audit report  shall include all the matters required  to be included in an auditor’s report under Section 227 of the Companies  Act and the matters as the Central Government may, also direct to  include. The Central Government is also authorized to direct any  particular person to furnish such information or additional information to  the auditor and failure to do so shall render such person liable to be  punished by imposition of fine.  The Central Government, on  consideration of the report is empowered to take such action as provided  under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 235 of  the Companies Act empowers the Central Government to appoint one or  more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 20  

company on the application of the shareholders and submit the report to  the Central Government.  Similar power for investigation is also vested  under Section 237 of the Act.  The company by a special resolution or  court by an order can declare that affairs of the company ought to be  investigated by an inspector appointed by the Central Government, where  the business of the company is being conducted with intent to defraud its  creditors, members or any other persons or otherwise for fraudulent or  unlawful purpose.  Then a reference has been made to Section 250 of the  Companies Act which empowers the Central Government to impose  restriction upon the transfer of shares and debentures of the company.  Any transfer of shares  made during the period of the restriction, would  be void under clause (a) of sub-section (2).  Such actions are permissible  to be taken in the public interest. Section 255 falls in the Chapter II   pertaining to directors and constitution of Board of Directors which  mandates for retirement of directors in given proportion by rotation.   Section 267 places restrictions on appointment of Managing Directors.   Such persons who are undischarged insolvents or at any time have been  adjudged so or having been convicted by a Court of an offence involving  moral turpitude.  So far the financial aspect is concerned, the Central  Government has powers  in that regard as well and in that connection our  attention has been drawn to Section 58-A.  Sub-sections (1) and (2) of  Section 58-A read as under : "58 A. (1) The Central Government may, in  consultation with the Reserve Bank of India,  prescribe the limits up to which, the manner in  which and the conditions subject to which deposits  may be invited or accepted by a company  either  from the public or from its members.

(2)     No company shall invite, or allow any other  person to invite or cause to be invited on its behalf,  any deposit unless -

(a)     such deposit is invited or is caused to be invited  in accordance with the rules made under sub- section (1), and  

(b)     an advertisement, including therein a statement  showing the financial position of the company,  has been issued by the company in such form  and in such manner as may be prescribed....."

Under Section 388 B the Central Government is empowered to state a  case and refer to the High Court where in certain circumstances it  considers that any person concerned in conduct and the management of  the affairs of the company is not fit to hold the office of Director or any  other office, to make an inquiry into the case and record its decisions in  that regard. On the basis of the report of the High Court the Central  Government has power to remove such a person as  the Director or as the  case may be.  A reference has also been made to certain provisions of  Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.  Section 15  empowers the Central Government to cause investigation to be made into  the affairs of the industrial undertaking in certain eventualities.  The same  reads as under : "15. Power to cause investigation to be made  into scheduled industries or industrial  undertakings.- Where the Central Government is  of the opinion that -

(a)     in respect of any scheduled industry or  industrial undertaking or undertakings -

(i)     there has been, or is likely to be, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 20  

substantial fall in the volume of production  in respect of any article or class of articles  relatable to that industry or manufactured or  produced in the industrial undertaking or  undertakings as the case may be, for which,  having regard to the economic conditions  prevailing, there is no justification; or

(ii)    there has been, or is likely to be, marked  deterioration in the quality of any article or  class of articles relatable to that industry or  manufactured or produced in the industrial  undertaking or undertakings, as the case  may be, which could have been or can be  avoided; or

(iii)   there has been or is likely to be a rise in the  price of any article or class of articles  relatable to that industry or manufactured or  produced in the industrial undertaking or  undertakings, as the case may be, for which  there is no justification; or

(iv)    it is necessary to take any such action as is  provided in this chapter for the purpose of  conserving any resources of national  importance which are utilized in the industry  or the industrial undertaking or  undertakings, as the case may be; or

(b) any industrial undertaking is being managed in  a manner highly detrimental to the scheduled  industry concerned or to public interest];

the Central Government may make or cause to be  made a full and complete investigation into the  circumstances of the case by such person or body  of persons as it may appoint for the purpose."

Section 15-A also empowers the Central Government to investigate into  the possibility of running or restarting the industrial undertaking which is  being wound up by or under the supervision of the High Court and to  make an application in that regard to the High Court.  Chapter III-A  provides for direct management or control of industrial undertakings by  Central Government in certain cases.  Relevant part of Section 18-A,  which falls under Chapter III-A,  reads as under : "18-A. Power of Central Government to assume  management or control of an industrial  undertaking in certain cases - (1) If the Central  Government is of opinion that-

(a)     an industrial undertaking to which directions  have been issued in pursuance of Section 16  has failed to comply with such directions, or

(b)     an industrial undertaking in respect of which  an investigation has been made under Section  15 (whether or not any directions have been  issued to the undertaking in pursuance of  Section 16), is being managed in a manner  highly detrimental to the scheduled industry  concerned or to public interest.

The Central Government may, by notified order,  authorize any person or body of persons to take

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 20  

over the management of the whole or any part of  the undertaking or to exercise in respect of the  whole or any part of the undertaking such  functions of control as may be specified in the  order....."

Section 18-AA empowers the Central Government to take over the  industrial undertaking  without investigation in the given circumstances.                 In view of the provisions indicated above under the  Companies Act and the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, it  is submitted that the nature and the control over the companies is more or  less of the same degree and nature as the control exercised over the  banking companies under the Banking Regulation Act.  There is control  and supervision over the functioning and working and the conduct of  business of the companies. A watchful eye is kept over the interest of the  share holders, the interest of the company itself as well as over the  production of company, even managing director can be removed by the  Central Government.  It has also the powers, as indicated above, to take  over the management of a company.  Such powers are drastic;  nonetheless they remain regulatory in nature in the interest of the  industry, the company, the shareholders and in the general interest since  production of goods of importance is most essential for proper economic  growth and stability of the country.                  A company registered under the Companies Act for the  purposes of carrying on any trade or business is a private enterprise to  earn livelihood and to make profits out of such activities.  Banking is also  a kind of profession and a commercial activity, the primary motive  behind it can well be said to earn returns and  profits.  Since time  immemorial, such activities have been carried on by individuals  generally. It is a private affair of the company though case of nationalized  banks stands on a different footing.  There may, well be companies, in  which majority of the share capital may be contributed out of the State  funds and in that view of the matter there may be more participation or  dominant participation of the State in managing the affairs of the  company.  But in the present case we are concerned with a banking  company which has its own resources to raise its funds without any  contribution or shareholding by the State. It has its own Board of  Directors elected by its shareholders.   It works like any other private  company in the banking business having no monopoly status at all.Any  company carrying on  banking business with a capital of five lacs will  become a scheduled bank. All the same, banking activity as a whole  carried on by various banks undoubtedly has an impact and effect on the  economy of the country in general.  Money of the shareholders and the  depositors is with such companies, carrying on banking activity.  The  banks finance the borrowers on any given rate of interest at a particular  time.  They advance loans as against securities.  Therefore, it is obviously  necessary to have regulatory check over such activities in the interest of  the company itself, the shareholders, the depositors as well as to maintain  the proper financial equilibrium of the national economy.    The Banking  companies have not been set up for the purposes of building economy of  the State on the other hand such private companies have been voluntarily  established for their own purposes and interest but their activities are kept  under check so that their activities may not go wayward and harm the  economy in general. A private banking company with all  freedom that it  has, has to act in a manner that it may not be in conflict with or against  the fiscal policies of the State and  for such purposes,  guidelines are  provided by the Reserve Bank so that a proper fiscal discipline, to  conduct its affairs in carrying on its business, is maintained.  So as to  ensure adherence to such fiscal discipline, if need be, at times even the  management  of the company can be taken over.  Nonetheless, as  observed earlier, these are all regulatory measures to keep a check and  provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the  affairs of the company. For other companies in general carrying on other  business activities may be manufacturing, other industries or any  business, such checks are provided under the provisions of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 20  

Companies Act, as indicated earlier.  There also, the main consideration  is that the company itself may not sink because of its own  mismanagement or the interest of the shareholders or people generally   may not be jeopardized for that reason.  Besides taking care of such  interest as indicated above, there is no other interest of the State, to  control the affairs and management of the  private companies.  The care  is taken in regard to the industries covered under the Industries  (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 that their  production which is  important for  the economy may not go down yet the business activity is  carried on by such companies or corporations which only remains a  private activity of the entrepreneurs/companies.  Such private companies would normally not be amenable to  the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.  But in certain  circumstances a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons as there  may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned  including the private companies.  For example, there are certain  legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act,  the Factories Act or for maintaining proper environment say Air  (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention  and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 etc. or statutes  of the like nature  which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such  private bodies which they are bound to comply with.  If they violate such  a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance of  those provisions. For instance, if a private employer dispense with the  service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the  Industrial Disputes Act, in innumerable cases the High Court interfered  and have issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that  regard.  But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not  be any non-compliance or violation of any statutory provision by the  private body.  In that event a writ may not be issued at all.  Other  remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to.  The six factors which have been enumerated in the case of Ajay  Hasia (supra) and approved in the later decisions in the case of Ramana  (supra) and the seven Judges Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar  Biswas (supra) may be applied to the facts of the present case and see as  to those tests apply to the appellant bank or not.  As indicated earlier,  share capital of the appellant bank is not held at all by the government  nor any financial assistance is provided by the State, nothing to say   which may meet almost the entire expenditure of the company.  The third  factor is also not answered since the appellant bank does not enjoy any  monopoly status nor it can be said to be an institution having State  protection. So far control over the affairs of the appellant bank is  concerned, they are managed by the Board of Directors elected by its  shareholders. No governmental agency or officer is connected with the  affairs of the appellant bank nor anyone of them is a member of the  Board of Directors.  In the normal functioning of the private banking  company there is no participation or interference of the State or its  authorities. The statutes have been framed regulating the financial and  commercial activities so that fiscal equilibrium may be kept maintained   and not get disturbed by the mal-functioning of such companies or  institutions involved in the business of banking. These are regulatory  measures for the purposes of maintaining the healthy economic  atmosphere in the country. Such regulatory measures are provided for  other companies also as well as industries manufacturing goods of  importance.   Otherwise these are purely private commercial activities. It  deserves to be noted that it hardly makes any difference that such  supervisory vigilance is kept by the Reserve Bank of India under a  Statute or the Central Government.  Even if it was with the Central  Government in place of the Reserve Bank of India it would not have   made any difference, therefore, the argument based on the decision of All  India Bank Employees’ Association (supra)  does not advance the case  of the respondent. It is only in case of mal-functioning of the company  that occasion to exercise such  powers arises to protect the interest of the  depositors, shareholders or the company itself or to help the company to  be out of the woods.  In the times of normal functioning such occasions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 20  

do not arise except for routine inspections etc.  with a view to see that  things are moved  smoothly in keeping with fiscal policies in general.   There are a number of such companies carrying on the  profession of banking.  There is nothing which can be said to be close to  the governmental functions.  It is an old profession in one form or the  other carried on by individuals or by a group of them.  Losses incurred in  the business are theirs as well as the profits.  Any business or commercial  activity, may be banking, manufacturing units or related to any other kind  of business generating resources, employment, production and resulting  in circulation of money are no doubt, are such which do have impact on  the economy of the country in general.  But such activities cannot be  classified one falling in the category of discharging duties, functions of  public nature. Thus the case does not fall in the fifth category of cases  enumerated in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra).  Again we find that the  activity which is carried on by the appellant is not one which may have  been earlier carried on by the government and transferred to the appellant  company.  For the sake of argument even if it may be assumed that one  or the other test as provided in the case of Ajay Hasia (supra) may be  attracted that by itself would not be sufficient to hold that it is an agency  of the State or a company carrying on the functions of public nature.  In  this connection, observations made in the case of Pradeep Kumar  Biswas (supra) quoted earlier would also be relevant. We may now consider the two decisions i.e. Andi Mukta  (supra) and the U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank  Ltd.(supra)upon which much reliance has been placed on behalf of the  respondents to show that a writ would lie against  the appellant company.   So far the decision in the case of U.P. State Co-operative Land  Development Bank Ltd.(supra) is concerned, it stands entirely on a  different footing and we have elaborately discussed it earlier.  The other case which has been heavily relied upon is Andi  Mukta (supra).  It is no doubt held that a Mandamus can be issued to any  person or authority performing public duty, owing positive obligation to  the affected party.  The writ petition was held to be maintainable since  the teacher whose services were terminated by the institution was  affiliated to the university and was governed by the Ordinances, casting  certain obligations which it owed to that petitioner. But it is not the case  here.  Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the  appellant to paragraphs 12, 13 and 21 of the decision (Andi Mukta) to  indicate that even according to this case no writ would lie against the  private body except where it has some obligation to discharge which is   statutory or of public character.   Merely because the Reserve Bank of India lays the banking  policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary  stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of  the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5(c)(a) of the Banking  Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the  business of or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public  function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to  those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies  are to act according to these provisions failing which certain  consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. Provision regarding  acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed  out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in  public interest.  It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest  has to give way to the public interest.  If a private property is acquired in  public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired  is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character  though it would be so for acquiring authority.   For the discussion held above, in our view, a private  company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank,  cannot be  termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public  duty.  A private  body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction  only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association  to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature  casting  positive obligation upon it.  We don’t find such conditions are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 20  

fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial  activity of banking.  Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity  carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any  such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which  may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the  Constitution.  Present is a case  of disciplinary action being taken against  its employee by the appellant Bank.  Respondent’s service with the bank  stands terminated.  The action of the Bank was challenged by the  respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution  of India.  The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on  the part of the Bank.  That being the position, the appeal deserves to be  allowed.   In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and  order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is held to  be not maintainable.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.

 AIR 1999 SC Page 753   (2002) 5 SCC page 111   Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975) 1 SCC 421   Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489   Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722   1970(3) SCC page 677   1962 (3) SCR page 265   1997(9) SCC page 377   1989(2) SCC page 691 10. 1993 (1) SCC page 645   1995(5) SCC page 482   1991(1) SCC page 212   1969 (1) SCC page 585   (1976) 2 SCC 58

1