JUDGMENT :- We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. We have also perused the order passed by the learned single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge is well reasoned and in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is not in dispute before us that three different and distinct companies belonging to the same group hold separate bank accounts with the appellant-Bank. It is also not disputed that the securities for loan accounts of the individual companies are not inter mixed and are independent of each other. At some stage, one of the companies made an application for return of the security documents as it wanted to open an account with another bank. This request was denied by the appellant-Bank on the ground that either the Group closes all its accounts or none. In other words, the appellant-Bank is willing to allow the writ petitioners to maintain all the three accounts but would not permit the continuance of only two accounts out of three.

2. The learned single Judge after taking into consideration the facts has come to the conclusion that the decision of the appellant-Bank was unjustified, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, a direction has been issued to the Central Bank of India to process the claim of the writ petitioner for return of the documents only after the entire liability being satisfied with regard to the account of the petitioner No. 1. This order was challenged by the appellant-Bank on the ground that the liability being purely contractual, the writ petition was not maintainable and the learned single Judge erred in law by entertaining the writ petition and issuing necessary directions.

3. In support of his submissions, Mr. Biswarup Gupta, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-Bank, has relied on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of National Highway Authorities of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410 : AIR 2003 SC 3823 and State of U.P. and Anr. v. Johri Mal, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 714 : AIR 2004 SC 3800.

4. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid two judgments do not lay down the proposition that there would be an absolute bar for entertaining writ petition in disputes arising out of a contract. In our opinion it is a settled proposition of law, that actions of government companies, corporations and other instrumentalities of the State, such as the appellant-Bank, which fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are amenable to judicial review, even in matters of contract. We are of the considered opinion that the decision making process of the appellant-Bank must conform to standards and norms which are rational, fair and

reasonable. In other words the decisions of the appellant-Bank must not suffer from illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety to satisfy the test of reasonableness, to comply with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. This view of ours will find support from the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of :

1) Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628.

2) Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P. reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212 : AIR 1991 SC 537.

3) ABL International Ltd. and Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553.

We may note here the observations contained in paragraph 52 and 53 in ABL International Ltd. (supra) which are as follows :-

"52. On the basis of the above conclusion of ours, the question still remains why should we grant the reliefs sought for by the appellants in a writ petition when a suitable efficacious alternate remedy is available by way of a suit. The answer to this question, in our opinion, lies squarely in the decision of this Court in the case of Shrilekha Vidyarthi wherein this Court held (SCC pp. 235-37, Paras 20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document