Writ petition against private Bank is not maintainable.

A. Kulasekaran, J.

1. The appellant is the petitioner in WP (MD) No. 3716 of 2004 filed for issuance of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 herein from effecting transfer or allow the respondents 3 to 5 to deal with 95418 shares of the second respondent/Bank from in any manner. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on 28.01.2005, hence the present writ appeal.

2. Thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant submits as follows: The appellant herein is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The second respondent/Bank is a scheduled bank incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. It is stated that the writ petition has been filed by the appellant herein to protect the interest of the members of their Sangam, who are the main subscribers of the second respondent/Bank, when attempts were made by the respondents 2 to 5 herein to transfer 95418 shares to third parties contrary to the guidelines issued by the first respondent and that the respondents 2 to 5 are violating the guidelines issued by the first respondent pertaining to transfer of shares; that on 12.03.2004 in the 81st Annual General Meeting of the second respondent bank, so many shareholders were prevented from attending the meeting on the ground that only power of attorney holders are entitled to attend the same; that despite requests made to record their objections, nothing has been done; that the first respondent/Bank prevented 33% of the shareholders of the bank from participating; and voting in the said meeting on the other ground that a case in O.S. No. 479 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif, Tuticorin, filed by the power of attorneys to restrain the bank from preventing the respondents 3 to 5 from exercising their voting right in the Annual General Meeting was decreed; that an appeal in CM.A. No. 3 of 1996 has been filed before the Sub-Court, Tuticorin which was later withdrawn in collusion with the respondents 3 to 5; that the present directors of the second respondent/Bank are again planning to alienate 95418 shares, which represents 33% of the total shares to various persons and benamies, if such an act is allowed, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the appellant and the interest. of the depositors, clients and employees of the second respondent/Bank will be affected; that the first respondent by order dated 13.08.2004 rejected the transfer of the said shares of seven individuals; that the respondents 3 to 5 are taking steps to transfer the shares once again; that the intention of the respondents 3 to 5 to effect transfer of shares is contrary to the guidelines issued by the first respondent and therefore the appellant finds no other alternative, except to file the above said writ petition, but the learned single Judge dismissed the same following the decision reported in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas and others, AIR 2003 SC 4325, which has not totally excluded the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for allowing the writ appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, submits that the writ petition is not at all maintainable in law or on facts. The writ petition seeks to set at naught powers of attorney executed by certain shareholders appointing the respondents 3 to 5 herein as their duly constituted agents and such relief is contractual in nature as it is between two individuals, hence the writ petition invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to either annul or to nullify such contract, is not maintainable; that the appellant is neither a vendor nor the principal who executed the power of attorney appointing the respondents 3 to 5 as agents, hence, it is not a aggrieved person; that the petitioner being a stranger to contract cannot maintain a civil suit, however, writ petition is not at all maintainable; that the original vendors executed irrevocable powers of attorney appointi