Back
2016 Supreme(All) 2362
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shri Narayan Shukla, Ashok Pal Singh, JJ.
Shabad Ahmad - Appellant
Versus
H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Thru Its Managing Director & Others - Respondent
Service Bench No. - 5309 of 2016
Decided On : 13-04-2016
For the Petitioner: Murli Manohar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Mani Dixit.
A private company carrying on banking business may only be subject to writ jurisdiction to enforce statutory obligations or obligations of public nature.
Headnote:
Termination - Writ Jurisdiction - Banking Regulation Act, Constitution of India - [Article 226, Banking Regulation Act] - The court discussed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the termination of an employee by a private bank. It referred to relevant legal provisions and case laws to determine that a private company carrying on banking business cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty, and may only be amenable to writ jurisdiction to enforce statutory obligations or obligations of public nature. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the termination letter issued by a private bank, seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was purely contractual and that the private bank did not carry out any statutory or public duty, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to the termination of the petitioner by a private bank.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a private company carrying on banking business cannot be considered as carrying out any statutory or public duty, and may only be subject to writ jurisdiction to enforce statutory obligations or obligations of public nature.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Heard Mr. Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manu Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank.
2. The petitioner has assailed the termination letter dated 04.01.2016 whereby he had been terminated from service by Senior Vice President, Human Resource Division, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Mumbai i.e. opposite party No.2(in short Bank).
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank had raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the H.D.F.C. Bank is purely a private Bank which is being purely maintained by private personnel. In writ petition No. 964 (SB) of 2011 which was filed before this Court, against ICICI Bank Ltd. which is similar to HDFC Bank, this Court held as under: -
"13. It is settled proposition of law that a writ of mandamus may be issued under writ jurisdiction in case there is violation of statutory provisions or there is violation of statutory duty by the authority. Ordinarily, writ of certiorari may not be issued against the order passed by the private bodies like respondent Bank but a mandamus may be issued to discharge statutory obligation in public interest. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to satisfy the Court that some statutory duty may be cast upon the respondents or the petitioner possesses some statutory right and for whose enforcement this Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to discharge their statutory obligations.
14. In view of the above, the writ petition seems to be not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to ventilate his grievance. It is clarified that we have not entered into the merit of the case."
He further cited a case of Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas 2003 (10) SCC 733 relevant paragraphs 32 and 33 are extracted below: -
"32. Merely because the 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 of 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. Provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so for acquiring authority.
33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Co
