@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to dispose of the representation, dated 11.08.2011 and also to give
police protection. In the representation, dated 11.08.2011 which was addressed to the Hon''ble Chief Minister, the Director General of Police and
the Home Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner complained about the action of the Federal Bank, Vatanapally Branch.
2. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has been filing case after case before various forums without there being legal right on his part. The
complaint made by the petitioner against the bank which is a private bank is not clearly maintainable.
3. The Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and Others, in paragraphs 27, 32 and 33 had observed as follows: ""27.Such
private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ
may issue to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including the private
companies. For example, there are certain legislations like the Industrial Disputes Act, the Minimum Wages Act, the Factories Act or for
maintaining proper environment, say the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1974 etc. or statutes of the like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are
bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance with those provisions. For instance,
if a private employer dispenses with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act, in
innumerable cases the High Court interfered and has issued the writ to the private bodies and the companies in that regard. But the difficulty in
issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance with or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event a
writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to. 32.Merely because 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 u/s 5(c)(a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the
business 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. As to the 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 a 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 the 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 a 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 put any such obligation upon it
which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its
employee by the appellant Bank. The respondent''s service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the
respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the
part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
4. Further, the Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Cooperative Credit Society Limited reported in (2008) 12 SCC 541, in
paragraph 16 had observed as follows:
16.It is one thing to say that the public sector banks having regard to the provisions of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of
Undertakings) Act, 1970 should discharge their functions keeping in mind the larger public interest but ordinarily in the matter of enforcement of
contract, they are to be governed by the terms thereof, which would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court unless the actions of the
banks are found to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.
In view of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
