HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12368/2018

Vaibhav Samuel S/o Vincent Vinod Samuel, Aged About 39

Years, R/o Opp. Church Hall, Christian Ganj, Ajmer

--Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance,

Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hills, New Delhi-110 001.

2.

Reserve Bank Of India Through Its Chief General Manager

(CGM) And Secretary, Secretary’s Department, Reserve

Bank Of India, 16^th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid

Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai-400 001.

3.

Housing Development Financial Corporation (HDFC) Bank

Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director,

HDFC Bank House, 2^nd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower

Parel, Mumbai-400 013

4.

Head Employee Relations, Housing Development Financial

Corporation (HDFC) Bank Limited, Think Techno Campus,

Building Alpha, Next To Kanjur Marg, Railway Station

(East), Kanjur Marg, Mumbai-400 042. ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order reserved on 01/02/2019

Order pronounced on 06/02/2019

REPORTABLE:

(2 of 7)

[CW-12368/2018]

1.

The preliminary question which arises in this petition is that

whether the writ petition would lie against the respondent HDFC

Bank which is admittedly a private Corporate Bank registered

under the Companies Act and has not been incorporated under a

Statute. Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with

the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal

Prasad Varshney Versus Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., reported in

2009 (2) ILR (Raj.) 601, wherein Full Bench of this Court held

that writ petition would not be maintainable against a Bank

incorporated under the Companies Act namely Bank of Rajasthan.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment

passed by the Supreme Court in M/s Zee Tele Films Ltd. and

another Versus Union of India and others, AIR 2005

Supreme Court 2677, has held as under:-

“33. Thus, it is clear that when a private body

exercises its public functions even if it is not a

State, the aggrieved person has a remedy not

only under the ordinary law but also under the

Constitution, by way of a writ petition under

Article 226. Therefore, merely because a non-

governmental body exercises some public duty

that by itself would not suffice to make such

body a State for the purpose of Article 12. In the

instant case the activities of the Board do not

come under the guidelines laid down by this

Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas case (supra),

hence there is force in the contention of Mr.

Venugopal that this petition under Article 32 of

the Constitution is not maintainable.”

2.

This Court is of the view that judicial discipline demands that

once a Full Bench of this Court has taken a view, a Single Judge

(3 of 7)

[CW-12368/2018]

would not question the same unless there is a subsequent

judgment which has come from the Supreme Court taking a

different view. Judicial Discipline and law of precedents have been

aptly discussed by the Apex Court in Official Liquidator Versus

Dayanand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 that apart in another

case reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733, Federal Bank Limited

Versus Sagar Thomas and Ors., the Apex Court has held as

under:-

“A writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India may be maintainable

against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an

authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an

instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a

company which is financed and owned by the

State; (vi) a private body run substantially on

State funding; (vii) a private body discharging a

public duty or positive obligation of a public

nature; and (viii) a person or a body under a

liability to discharge any function under any

statute, to compel it to perform such statutory

function. It is no doubt true tha