Private companies carrying on banking business do not discharge public duty and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the availability of alternative remedies under specific laws and general civil and criminal laws precludes the entertainment of writ petitions.

Alok Aradhe, J.

1. Heard on I.A. No. 2032/2011, an application for dismissal of the writ petition.

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that the respondent-Bank had sanctioned an over draft facility of Rs. 1,94,90,000/- vide letter dated 21-9-2005. The respondent-Bank thereafter obtained an application for renewal of sanction on 2-2-2007 and required the petitioners to execute various documents including 12 crossed blank post dated cheques of United Bank of India towards payment of interest and 4 undated blank cheques of the same Bank. It is a case of the petitioners that instead of renewing the sanction, the Bank sent a notice through its lawyer on 11-8-2007 and threatened the petitioners that he may be prosecuted for an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as action under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 Act') may be taken against them. It is averred in the writ petition that Bank forged a blank undated cheque to show that it was issued on 1-1-2008 for a sum of Rs. 2,26,05,018/- and presented the same for encashment. However, when the cheque was dishonoured a notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dated 28-1-2008 was issued to the petitioners. The respondents also issued a notice under section 13(2) of the 2002 Act. In the aforesaid background the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(i) Notice under section 13(2) (Annexure-5) be quashed;

(ii) Respondents be restrained from prosecuting the petitioners under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Shri. Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that respondent No. 1 is a Private Company carrying on banking business as Scheduled Bank and, therefore, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty and, therefore, such a company is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In support of his submission learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sager Thomas and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 733, Binny Ltd. and Anr. v. V. Sadasivan and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657 and Bhadra Shahakari S. K. Niyamita v. Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 552. Learned Counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance on the order dated 12-7-2010 passed in W.P. No. 3144/2010 (S), M/s Ramdev Ginning Factory v. The Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. as well as order dated 16-2-2010 passed in W.P. No. 10645/2006, G.P. Tiwari v. ICICI Bank Limited and Ors.

4. Shri. A.D. Deoras, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, has submitted that respondents may be directed to file return in which they may raise an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in Federal Bank Ltd. (supra), was with regard to termination of services of an employee of the Bank, who was employed as a Branch Manager. An objection was raised with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that Federal Bank is a Private Bank and is not a State or its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. In the aforesaid writ petition the employee had sought a writ of mandamus. In that context, the Supreme Court held that writ petition against a private company carrying on business as a Scheduled Bank is not maintainable. In the instant case, the petitioner is not seeking a writ of mandamus. It was further submitted that the scope and ambit under Article 226 of the Constitution is much wider and a writ can be issued against a person or an authority. Learned Senior Counsel has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in Tamil N