Back
1994 Supreme(All) 99
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.A. SHARMA, J.
Girish Chandra Saxena - Appellant
Versus
Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank, Indian Corporate Office, Bombay - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44516 of 1993
Decided on : Jan 31, 1994
Advocate appeared:
S.P. Singh
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable to enforce a private right against a private body that is not exercising any statutory power or discharging any public duty.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - PRIVATE RIGHT - PRIVATE BODY - NO PUBLIC DUTY - STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - WRIT PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an employee of Standard Chartered Bank, was removed from service by the Bank. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Bank not to interfere with his working and to pay him salary regularly.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the right asserted by the petitioner was of a private character and the Bank was a private body with no public duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the right asserted by the petitioner is of a private character? 2. Whether the Bank is a private body with no public duty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the right to work in the Bank claimed by the petitioner was derived from an agreement of employment executed with the Bank, which was not a statutory agreement. Therefore, the right was of a private character. 2. The Court held that the Bank was a private banking company incorporated in England under the Royal Charter and was not exercising any power or discharging any duty under any statute or public duty. It was only carrying on the business of banking like any other businessman.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
R. A. Sharma, J.
1. Standard Chartered Bank respondent no. 3, (herein after referred to as the Bank) is a banking company incorporated in England with limited liability by Royal Charter having its registered office at 1, Aldermanbury Square, London, petitioner was an employee of the Bank working in its office at Kanpur. By order dated 3-8-1993 petitioner has been removed from service by the Bank. It is against this order that he has filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner in the Bank as Staff Omcer and further to pay him salary regularly and not to give effect to the aforesaid order of termination, has also been made. This Court 3-12-1993 has granted an interim order staying the operation of the above order of termination of service.
2. At the thresh-hold, a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition has been raised on behalf of respondents, which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is this question which is to be decided first.
In the case of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1980 SC 1607, relevant extract from which is reproduced below. Supreme Court has laid down that writ cannot be issued by a High Court if rights art purely of private character or if the person or authority is private body with no public duty.
"If the rights are purely off a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are the two exceptions to Mandamus" Although the above observations have been made with regard to mandamus but same principles will apply in the case of writ of certiorari also. This. Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ to any person or authority within the territory in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, but the "person" or a "authority" should be either statutory authority or agency or Instrumentality of the State. They may also cover any other person or authority performing public duty. Private persons or private bodies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless they exercise some statutory powers or discharge public duty. Supreme Court In the above case of Sri Anandi Mukta Sadguru has, in this connection, laid down as under :
"The words "Any person or authority" used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined, only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant what is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party."
3. Questions which arc required to be decided for resolving this controversy in the instant case are (i) Whether the right which is being asserted by the petitioner is of private character, and (ii) whether the Bank is a private body with no public duty.
4. Bank is neither governmental authority nor agency or instrumentality of the State and as such is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is private banking company incorporated in England under the Royal Charter and is carrying on business in India at various places including Kanpur. There are no statutory Rules or Regulations framed for regulating the conditions of service of the employees of the BANK. Petitioner has been employed by the BANK under an agreement of employment, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, under which his service can be terminated by the BANK after three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof. Right to work in the BANK which petitioner claims is right which is derived from agreement which has been executed by him with the BANK and this agreement is not a st
