Manmohan Sarin, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER a Development Officer of the respondent Bank by this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 9. 9. 2004. By the impugned order petitioner was directed to hand over charge and not to attend the bank w. e. f. 18. 9. 2004 as his contract had not been extended by the Board of Directors of respondent Bank. Petitioner also seeks direction for payment of his emoluments for the month of July and August,2004.

( 2 ) PETITIONER had retired from the Central Bank of india as a Manager. Post-retirement he was appointed by the respondent, Jain Cooperative Bank as a Development officer to promote the business of the Bank. Petitioner s case is that his contract is wrongfully sought to be terminated by the order of 9. 9. 2004, while the contract stood extended upto 31. 12. 2004 as communicated by the Secretary of the respondent Bank. The stand of the respondent bank appears to be that contract has not been extended after its expiry on 30. 6. 2004.

( 3 ) THE question arising for consideration is whether the alleged wrongful termination of the contractual service by the Bank could be the subject matter of a writ petition.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent bank was discharging public functions and catering to the needs of its members and public, being a cooperative bank. It was a registered society. It was governed by the Cooperative Societies Act and in particular by the RBI regulations, as far as banking activities were concerned. Counsel urged that it functions had public character, hence it should be regarded as an instrumentality of State and/ or an authority within the meaning of Article12 of the constitution of India amenable to writ jurisdiction.

( 5 ) RELIANCE was placed on the judgment of the supreme Court in U. P. State Co-operative Land Development bank Ltd. Vs. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors, reported at AIR 1999 Supreme Court 753. The said case is completely distinguishable on facts. It was held in the cited case that writ against the U. P. State Co-operative Land development Bank Ltd. was maintainable. The Court found that the U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank ltd. , though registered as a Co-operative Society, had been constituted under the provisions of Bank Act. Further in exercise of the powers conferred under the u. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Rules,1971, rules had been framed for the service conditions of the employees of the applicant therein. In brief the Society constituted under the Act was to be governed by the regulations framed pursuant to the statutory powers and the said rules governed the service conditions of the employees. It is in these facts and on consideration of other applicable provisions, the Court found that the control of the State Government on the U. P. State Co- operative Land Development Bank Ltd. was all pervasive and the employees had statutory protection and, therefore, U. P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank ltd. was held to be an authority or even instrumentality of the State amenable to writ jurisdiction.

( 6 ) THIS is not the situation in the present case under consideration. It is a private cooperative bank, though registered as a Society under the Societies registration Act. Mere discharge of public functions by a private banking company would not make it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reference may usefully be made to the following extracts from the recent decision of Supreme court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas reported at 2003 (10) SCC 733, which squarely applies to the present case:-

"but in the present case the concern is with a banking company which has its own resources to raise its funds without any contribution or shareholding of 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 car

Click Here to Read the rest of this document