HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5972/2024 Chandmal Kothari ----Petitioner Versus Bhilwara Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Singh for Mr. Lokesh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kamini Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

12/03/2026

1. The matter comes up on an application (01/2024) for vacation of stay order dated 15.04.2024.

2. On 10.03.2026, the present matter was listed before this Court and the respondents has raised strong preliminary objection pertaining to maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Qua the respondent-Cooperative Bank, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Niyamat Ali Versus Sirohi Distt. Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., 1993 2 RLW (Raj) 1. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:

"26. Hence, for the reasons mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent Bank is neither a State instrumentality nor a State agency nor State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. It is also not an authority which discharges such public functions which are akin or have reasonable nexus to the Govt. functions. Moreover, the respondent Bank does not have any substantial financial assistance of the State nor its share capital is held by the Govt. nor it enjoys the monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected nor it is under the deep and pervasive State control. Therefore not an iota of doubt lurks into our mind to hold that this writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent Bank under Art. 226 of the Constitution."

4. Learned counsel has submitted that the respondent-Bank does not have any substantial financial assistance from the State and no share capital of the Bank is held by the State government. It is further submitted that as per the provisions enshrined under Rule 17 of the Urban Cooperative Bank Employee Service Rules, 2006, a remedy of appeal before the Board of Director (Appellate Authority) is available with the petitioner. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Niyamat Ali Versus Sirohi Distt. Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), learned counsel has submitted that the present petition should be dismissed at the threshold and the interim order dated 15.04.2024 should be vacated.

5. Per contra, at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought for an adjournment when the matter was called. The reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, (2017) 2 SCC 308. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:

"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a Departmental Authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the Disciplinary Authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority, non-recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The respondent’s case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable