( 1 ) IN the annals of history it is difficult to discover a dictator a feudal lord or a monarch who openly discarded `public interest and asserted his legal right to rule the people and consider `public interest as irrelevant. Even military dictators while exploiting the people and inflicting miseries on them they cover their faces by the veil of `public interest. But in a democracy wedded to welfare of the people and where the Constitution of the country has promised the people to establish an egalitarian society based on socialist principles a nationalised bank (which is `state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution) asserts through its Senior Counsel (Mr. M. S. Sanghvi) that the Bank is under no legal obligation to take into consideration `public interest while executing a money decree and therefore it shall disregard the same. Shocking as it is this is the stand of the Bank and not a mere legal point raised by an attorney of the Bank. Therefore while complementing the Bank for being candid in its stand we do feel dismayed and pose a question to ourselves-`if the State disregards `public interest can the goal of establishment of a socialist society be anything but a mirage-and beautiful dream always receding in background and incapable of being realised ?

( 2 ) THEREFORE further questions arise; (1) Why and to achieve which purpose such a stance is adopted by the Bank? (2) Whose interests are sought to be served by disregarding the public interest ? (3) Should the Court become an instrument in the hands of the Bank and accord its approval to the action and steps taken by the Bank which are against public interest and which tend to serve the private interest of certain individuals ?

( 3 ) THE history of the litigation reveals that the State of Gujarat (applicant herein) wanted to assist an undertaking known as Ahmedabad Jupiter Spinning Weaving and Manufacturing Company Ltd. the original defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred d to as the Mill Company ). Probably with a view to see that unemployment problem be not accentuated the State of Gujarat stood as guarantor of the Mill Company for an amount of Rs. 55 lakhs (Rs. 35 lakhs and Rs. 20 lakhs on two different occasions ). The guarantee was for a limited period of five years. The Central Bank of India (respondent No. 1 and original plaintiff) also extended its help to the Mill Company mainly with a view to extricate it out of difficult situation. The Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) stood nationalised as per the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Banking Companies Act ). Both the State Government and the bank were acting in the best interest of the public But at the stage of execution of the decree obtained by the Bank it has adopted a hyper technical stand which according to the Bank is based on the provisions of Order 41 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (hereinafter referred to as Code of 1903) The Bank asserts that since it is easier for it to realise the decretal dues from the State Government and other public authorities and since there is no legal impediment in pursuing the State Government first for the realisation of its dues it would not be guided by the consideration of public interest. In such matters according to the Bank. it has free choice and the law permits the Bank to take such a course.

( 4 ) LET us have a quick look at the facts The Bank had advanced huge amount to the Mill Company. The advances were made before it was closed sometime in June 1971. When the Mill Company was taken over by the National Textile Corporation on 10/10/1971 the outstanding amount which remained due against it was to the tune of Rs. 2 83 76 463. 93 Ps. (two crores eighty three lakhs seventy six thousand four hundred and sixty three and paise ninty three only ). Thereafter the Mill Company was declared as `relief undertaking under the pr