IMPORTANT POINTS
Even if a body discharges a public function in a wider sense, a writ will not be issued for enforcement of a private contract of service, since there is no public law element involved. That, contract of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions and that the only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. ARUN, J.

1. The appellant, a Grade-III Officer in the rank of Senior Manager in the 1st respondent Bank, had filed the writ petition challenging his transfer from Thrissur to Delhi. The challenge was on the ground that the transfer was punitive in nature and a vindictive action taken against the appellant, who was the Vice President of the Catholic Syrian Bank Officers Association. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found the writ petition to be not maintainable, the 1st respondent being a scheduled bank, registered as a Company under the Companies Act. For the purpose of deciding the question of maintainability, the learned Single Judge referred to the decisions in Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs. Asha Srivastava, 2019 (2) KHC 929 (SC), Ramesh Ahuluwalia vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331, Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas, (2003) 10 SCC 733, Binny Ltd. and Another vs. Sadasivan and Others, (2005) 6 SCC 657 and Ramakrishna Mission and Others vs. Kago Kunya and Others, 2019 (5) SCALE 559.

2. The appeal is filed contending that the functions of the 1st respondent Bank are similar to that of nationalised banks, and in that sense the 1st respondent Bank is discharging public function. It is also contended that the employees of the Bank are dealing with public money and hence the duty discharged by them would fall within the definition of public duty. It is hence contended that the reliance placed on the decision in Sagar Thomas's case (Supra) is misplaced and that the writ petition was maintainable inasmuch as the appellant was transferred in violation of the principles of the natural justice.

3. In the nature of the challenge made, it would be appropriate to consider the dictum laid down in Sagar Thomas's case (supra). The issue therein pertained to the dismissal of one Sagar Thomas, who was working as Branch Manager in the Federal Bank. Like the 1st respondent herein, the Federal Bank is also a scheduled Bank and a Company registered under the Companies Act. Sagar Thomas challenged his dismissal by filing writ petition before the High Court. The Federal Bank raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that the Federal Bank performs 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. The Bank went in appeal and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal referring to a decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Chandra Ban Dubey and Others, AIR 1999 SC 753. The Division Bench observed that in Chandra Ban Dubey's case (supra), the Apex Court had, under identical fact situation, held that writ application would be maintainable and that in spite of minor distinction on facts in the case under consideration and the decision in Chandra Ban Dubey's case (supra), the dictum was applicable to scheduled banks also. Aggrieved, the Bank went in appeal before the Supreme Court, which culminated in the decision in Sagar Thomas's case (supra). After an elaborate precedential survey and on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Reserve Bank of India Act and the Banking Regulation Act, the Apex Court held as follows:

“32. Merely because 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 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. As