# Vijay Bahadur & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 648
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 13256 of 2021
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-bahadur-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46600
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Employment - Salary/wages -
Eviction - Societies Registration Act,1860 -
Section 13 - The Society which managed the affairs
of the hospital (The Georgina McRobert Memorial
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar) dissolved and as a result the
lease granted in favour of the Society was cancelled.
In pursuance to this, petitioners (employees of the
hospital) of Writ - A No. 13256 of 2021 were directed
to vacate the premises by the impugned order.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 13 -
No approval is required from the Sub-Registrar
and any dispute among the governing body
members or the members of the Society is to
be referred to the Principal Court of original
Civil jurisdiction of the District, in which the
chief building of the Society is situated and
that Court alone shall pass such order in the
matter as it may deem fit. (Para 18)

As of today legally there is no Society in existence
from the date of passing of the resolution dissolving
the Society and there being no challenge before the
Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, Court held
that the Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 could not have
been filed by the petitioners, who have no locus,
specially petitioner no. 1 (which stands dissolved),
Petitioner No 2, Petitioner No 5 and Petitioner No 6
(who are neither the members nor members of Board
of Governors) and with regard to the other persons
i.e. Petitioners nos. 3 and 4 the only recourse open
11 All. Vijay Bahadur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
was to approach the Principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction, which has admittedly not been done.
(Para 21)

B. Once the Lease has come to an end and
there is no challenge to the cancellation of
Lease, the Licencee on his own cannot have an
enforceable right in respect of property rights.
It is clear is that the State Government has taken a
decision to take over the Hospital and to construct a
multi-speciality Hospital. The legal status of the
petitioners of writ petition no 13256/21, even as per
their own showing is that of a licencee of the Society
which was the lessee of the land which is a Nazul
Land, the Lessor being the State. (Para 23, 24)

The writ petition being Writ-A No. 13256 of 2021 is
disposed off with directions that the petitioner shall
approach the District Magistrate by filing their
representation, which shall be considered by the
District Magistrate, Kanpur either himself or through a
Committee to be appointed by him with regard to the
arrears of wages claimed by them and with regard to
their occupation on the land of the Society. This
measure is being directed only on humanitarian
grounds as the petitioners do not have any legal
rights over property. (Para 25, 27, 28)

Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 is dismissed. Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 is disposed off with directions. Writ-C
No. 17749 of 2019 and Writ-C No. 17779 of 2019 are
rendered infructuous. All the rights can be agitated
only before the principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction. (Para 30) (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major
General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr (supra)
and it was held that no person has a right of
appeal against the final order or decision of the
Tribunal to the Supreme Court other than those
falling under Section 30(2) of the Act, but it is
statutory appeal which lies to the Supreme
Court. Thus, against the impugned order the
petitioner has a right of appeal before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court under under Section 30
read with Section 31 of the Act. The judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Balkrishna Ram (supra) reiterates the well
settled principle of law with regard to the
extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.

10. The controversy involved before the
Tribunal in the present set of facts was with
regard to the rejection of statutory complaint and
setting aside the annual confidential report of the
petitioner for the year 1988 and promotion to
him to the rank of Naib Subedar from ante date
of seniority alongwith all consequential benefits.

11.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and the impugned
order of Tribunal, we do not find any good
reason to exercise our discretion to entertain the
present writ petition particularly in view of the
law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Major
General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr (supra).
Consequently and without expressing any
opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner,
the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for
the petitioner to file an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of The Armed Forces Tribunal Act,
2007.
----------
(2021)11ILR A648
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ A No. 13256 of 2021
connected with
Writ C Nos. 14759 of 2019 and 17749 of 2019 and
17779 of 2019

Vijay Bahadur & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Employment - Salary/wages -
Eviction - Societies Registration Act,1860 -
Section 13 - The Society which managed the affairs
of the hospital (The Georgina McRobert Memorial
Hospital, Kanpur Nagar) dissolved and as a result the
lease granted in favour of the Society was cancelled.
In pursuance to this, petitioners (employees of the
hospital) of Writ - A No. 13256 of 2021 were directed
to vacate the premises by the impugned order.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 13 -
No approval is required from the Sub-Registrar
and any dispute among the governing body
members or the members of the Society is to
be referred to the Principal Court of original
Civil jurisdiction of the District, in which the
chief building of the Society is situated and
that Court alone shall pass such order in the
matter as it may deem fit. (Para 18)

As of today legally there is no Society in existence
from the date of passing of the resolution dissolving
the Society and there being no challenge before the
Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction, Court held
that the Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 could not have
been filed by the petitioners, who have no locus,
specially petitioner no. 1 (which stands dissolved),
Petitioner No 2, Petitioner No 5 and Petitioner No 6
(who are neither the members nor members of Board
of Governors) and with regard to the other persons
i.e. Petitioners nos. 3 and 4 the only recourse open
11 All. Vijay Bahadur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
649
was to approach the Principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction, which has admittedly not been done.
(Para 21)

B. Once the Lease has come to an end and
there is no challenge to the cancellation of
Lease, the Licencee on his own cannot have an
enforceable right in respect of property rights.
It is clear is that the State Government has taken a
decision to take over the Hospital and to construct a
multi-speciality Hospital. The legal status of the
petitioners of writ petition no 13256/21, even as per
their own showing is that of a licencee of the Society
which was the lessee of the land which is a Nazul
Land, the Lessor being the State. (Para 23, 24)

The writ petition being Writ-A No. 13256 of 2021 is
disposed off with directions that the petitioner shall
approach the District Magistrate by filing their
representation, which shall be considered by the
District Magistrate, Kanpur either himself or through a
Committee to be appointed by him with regard to the
arrears of wages claimed by them and with regard to
their occupation on the land of the Society. This
measure is being directed only on humanitarian
grounds as the petitioners do not have any legal
rights over property. (Para 25, 27, 28)

Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 is dismissed. Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 is disposed off with directions. Writ-C
No. 17749 of 2019 and Writ-C No. 17779 of 2019 are
rendered infructuous. All the rights can be agitated
only before the principal Court of original civil
jurisdiction. (Para 30) (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. C/M Maharshi Kapil Muni Shiksha Samiti & anr. Vs
State of U.P. & anr., Writ-C No. 19885 of 2020,
decided on 08.12.2020 (Para 18)

Present
petition
assails
order
dated
24.08.2021.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Shri Y.K. Saxena, Advocate
appearing on behalf of petitioner in Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 as well as in Writ-C No. 14759 of
2021 as well as Shri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri
Naushad Siddiqui, learned Standing Counsel on
behalf of State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed
by the 22 persons claiming themselves to be the
employees of The Georgina McRobert Memorial
Hospital, 14/112, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar. In
the present writ petition, the petitioners have
alleged and argued that the petitioners are the
employees, who were not being paid their
salaries and the second claim of the petitioners is
that by virtue of their employment, they are
entitled to retain the properties in their
occupation in the premises 14/112, Civil Lines,
Kanpur Nagar, from which they have been
threatened to be evicted and as such have
approached this Court.

3. As the issue raised in the present writ
petition are intrinsically linked to Writ-C No.
14759 of 2021, Writ-C No. 17749 of 2019 and
Writ-C No. 17779 of 2019, this Court vide order
passed on 30th September, 2021 had directed the
matter to be listed along with

4. In terms of the said directions, the
matter are listed. As the claim made in the
petition cannot be decided without deciding the
issues raised in the other writ petition, i:e Writ-C
No. 14759 of 2021 as such the said writ petition
is also being disposed off by means of the
present order.

5. The facts that emerge on account of
dispute in between the parties is that a Society in
the name of The Georgina McRobert Memorial
Hospital, 14/112, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar.
was registered on 30th November, 1919 under
the U.P. Societies Registration Act. to manage
and run a prestigious hospital, namely The
Georgina McRobert Memorial Hospital at
Kanpur providing one of the best medical
facilities to the residents of Kanpur. The Society
has its own bye-laws. In terms of the bye-laws
of the Society, the Board of Governors were
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
managing
the
affairs,
consisting
of
11
Governors. With the passage of time, the society
could not manage the affairs of the Hospital
effectively and the whole purpose of the society
got adversly effected, however, as the society
was in possession of huge piece of land and
building and the society was on verge of
financial bankruptcy, the land sharks and
unsocial elements found the assets of the society
an easy prey . As with the passage of time, three
members of the Board of Governors left Kanpur
or died, disputes arose amongst the remaining
eight members ,initially the dispute related to
induction and resignations of two members
namely Mr.Ananad Swaroop and Mr. Nitin
Gupta,which resulted in various litigation upto
this Court in a second series of attempt by the
minority group of members in Board of
Governors, to out number the majority group of
five members,proposed to hold a meeting for
inducting
three
persons
namely
Kamal
Bhatia,Navin Darolia and Sandeep Kansal, who
claimed to be reputed residents of Kanpur and
proposed to donate Rs. 25 Lakhs each to the
Hospital on their being inducted as members of
the society and also being inducted to the Board
of Governor.

6. In a meeting convened on 14.3.2019,
they were made the Members/Governors of the
Society. It was alleged by majority faction of the
society that no verification of the said three
persons with regards to their antecedents was
recorded and no notice of the said meeting was
given to the rest of members of the Board.

7. The said three persons inducted are, the
petitioner no. 2, petitioner no. 5 and the
petitioner no. 6 in Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021.

8. After the induction of three member a
list of members of the Board of Governors was
filed with the Deputy Registrar ,the said list and
induction of the three persons was opposed by
existing
Board
of
Governors
who
filed
objections before the Registrar complaining of
the manner, in which the meeting was conducted
and the three persons were coopted. The deputy
registrar by his notice dated on 25.3.2019 called
upon the parties to appear before him and to
submit their response. The said hearing came to
be challenged in Writ Petition No. 12530 of
2019, which was disposed off vide order dated
11.4.2019, directing the Deputy Registrar to pass
final orders in regard to the dispute raised by the
Board of Governors.

9. In terms of the directions given, an order
came to be passed on 10.5.2019 holding that the
induction of three persons was arbitrary and the
meeting held on 14.3.2019 was held to be bad in
law.

10. The said order dated 10.5.2019 was
challenged by one Sandeep Kansal and another
vide W.P.no 17779 of 2021. Similar writ
petition was also filed by Society through its
secretary Kamal Bhatia and five persons
challenging the order dated 10.5.2019 vide WritC No. 17749 of 2019. In one of the writ petition
being Writ-C No. 17749, as an interim measure,
only to protect the interest and running of the
Hospital, this Court passed an order on 3.7.2019
permitting the petitioners of Writ-C No. 17749
of 2019 to operate bank accounts to meet the
expenses of the Hospital.No order was passed
reviving the quashed resolution dated 14.3.2019.

11. The facts emerge, that the three persons
who were elected in the meeting dated 14.3.2019
lost their claim as the resolution dated 14.3.19
stood set aside vide order dated 10.5.2019 which
is challenged in the Writ-C No. 17749 of 2019
and Writ-C No. 17779 of 2019 pending before
this Court.

12. As the strength of the Board of
Governors had fallen to Eight members, five of
the remaining Board of Members finding it
difficult to run the Hospital, wrote a letter to the
11 All. Vijay Bahadur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
Secretary on 8.1.2021 seeking to convene a
meeting, the agenda being the dissolving the
Society. In the explanatory statement of said
agenda, it was recorded that the Society was
found with an object to taken over the Hospital
from Sir Alexander, however, despite running
the Hospital for 100 years, in the last two years,
the Hospital was on the verge of being shut
down and the Society was unable to meet its
liabilities and obligations even with regard to the
payment of the electricity bills, etc. A decision
was to be taken with regard to the closure of the
Society.

13. The Secretary, the petitioner no. 3 in
Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021, wrote a letter that he
was no more the Secretary of the Society and as
such the requisition letter was wrongly sent to him
and he also informed that as the disputes with
regard to the membership is pending before the
High Court in Writ-C No. 17749 of 2019 and
Writ-C No. 17779 of 2019, it would be improper
to call a meeting as proposed. In any event, a
meeting came to be held on 14th February, 2021,
wherein a decision was taken by five members
present, four in person and one through power of
attorney out of the Eight members, to dissolve the
Society under the provisions of Societies
Registration Act and a laudable agenda was passed
to donate the entire assets of the Society, after
meeting out its liabilities and obligations, to the
Government of Uttar Pradesh for establishing a
multi-speciality hospital for the people of Kanpur.

14. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Kanpur, proceeded to pass an order
dated 25.2.2021, taking into account the resolution
dated 14th February, 2021 accepting the same
wrote a letter to the District Magistrate for taking
effective steps in pursuance to the resolution and in
pursuance to the donation of the property in favour
of the State of U.P.

15. After a series of communication, the
State Government took a decision on 26.7.2021,
whereby the Nazul lease granted in favour of the
Society was cancelled and it was directed that
the records be amended to incorporate the
following
''Un-awantit
Sarkari
Bhumi',
simultaneously therewith, an order was passed
constituting of a Committee of three persons,
namely, the ADM (City), Chief Medical Officer
and Additional District Magistrate Sadar to act
as administrators for running of the affairs. In
the said order, it was recorded that the State
Government has approved the actions.

16. In pursuance to the action taken by the
State Government cancelling the lease granted in
favour of the Society, notices were issued to the
petitioners of Writ-A No. 13256 of 2021
directing them to vacate the premises vide order
dated 24.8.2021, against which the petitioners of
Writ-A No. 13256 of 2021 have filed the present
writ petition alleging that on the one hand, they
have not been paid their wages and on the other
hand they are being threatened with forcible
eviction. The allegations is that the petitioners
have not been paid the amount of their wages
since long.

17. The facts that emerge and recorded
above are that five of the Eight members of
Board of Governors representing three-fifth of
the total strength of the remaining members
passed a resolution dissolving the Society in
terms of the mandate of Section 13 of the Act.
Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act is
quoted hereinbelow:-

"13. Provision for dissolution of
societies and adjustment of their affairs.--Any
number not less than three-fifths of the
members of any society may determine that it
shall be dissolved, and thereupon it shall be
dissolved forthwith, or at the time then agreed
upon, and all necessary steps shall be taken for
the disposal and settlement of the property of the
society, its claims and liabilities, according to
the rules of the said society applicable thereto, if
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any, and, if not, then as the governing body shall
find expedient provided that, in the event of any
dispute arising among the said governing body
or the members of the society, the adjustment
of its affairs shall be referred to the principal
Court of original civil jurisdiction of the district
in which the chief building of the society is
situate; and the Court shall make such order in
the matter as it shall deem requisite:

Provided that no society shall be
dissolved unless three-fifths of the members
shall have expressed a wish for such dissolution
by their votes delivered in person, or by proxy,
at a general meeting convened for the purpose:

Provided
that
1[whenever
any
Government] is a member of, or a contributor
to, or otherwise interested in any society
registered under this Act, such society shall not
be dissolved 2[without the consent of the
Government of the 3[State] of registration]."

18. This Court in the case of C/M
Maharshi Kapil Muni Shiksha Samiti and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Writ-C
No. 19885 of 2020, decided on 8.12.2020 has
already held that in terms of the requirement of
Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, no
approval is required from the Sub-Registrar and
any dispute among the governing body members
or the members of the Society is to be referred to
the Principal Court of original Civil jurisdiction
of the District, in which the chief building of the
Society is situate and that Court alone shall pass
such order in the matter as it may deem fit.

19. From the facts it is clear that a
prestigious Society owing valuable piece of land
in the heart of city of Kanpur Nagar is being
attempted to be taken over through back door
entries and finally a resolution has been passed
dissolving the Society in terms of Section 13 of
the Act, as such from the date of passing of the
resolution,legally there is no Society left. It is
also borne from the records that no proceedings
have been initiated before the principal Court of
original civil jurisdiction in respect of any
dispute in between the members of the Society
or the governing body. On the face of the
resolution, the same has been passed in
accordance with Section 13 and any dispute in
that regard can only be entertained by the
principal Court of original civil jurisdiction.

20. There being no such dispute raised, it is
not understandable as to how a dissolved Society
could file Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 and how
the petitioner no. 2 of Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021
can claim himself to be the Secretary of the
Society,once,
his
membership
through
a
resolution has been set aside vide order dated
10.5.19 he is legally not even a member and
consequently he can't claim to be a secretary. In
any view the contention in Writ Petition No.
14759/2021 is that Section 13 providing for
three-fifth members
has
to
be
read
in
consonance with the requirement of strength
provided in bye laws of the society which
argument merits outright rejection as the
statutory provision will prevail over bye-laws.

21. As of today legally there is no Society
in existence from the date of passing of the
resolution dissolving the Society and there being
no challenge before the Principal Court of
original civil jurisdiction, I have no hesitation in
holding that the Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021 could
not have been filed by the petitioners, who have
no locus, specially petitioner no. 1(which stands
dissolved),Petitioner No 2,Petitioner No 5 and
Petitioner No 6 (who are neither the members
nor members of Board of Governors) and with
regard to the other persons i:e Petitioners nos 3
and 4 the only recourse open was to approach
the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction,
which has admittedly not been done.

22. The other fact that is clear from the
whole narrative is that the cancellation of the
Nazul lease has not been challenged and only
the order communicating the cancellation of the
11 All. Vijay Bahadur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653
Nazul lease is under challenge, as the same was
done through the order dated 17.6.2021 by the
State Government.

23. It is also clear is that the State
Government has taken a decision to take over
the Hospital and to construct a multi-speciality
Hospital.

24. The legal status of the petitioners of
writ petition no 13256/21, even as per their own
showing is that of a licencee of the Society
which was the lessee of the land which is a
Nazul Land, the Lessor being the State. Once the
Lease has come to an end and there is no
challenge to the cancellation of Lease,the
Licencee on his own cannot have an enforceable
right in respect of property rights.

25. In view of the fact that the Government
has taken a decision to take over the Hospital,
the assets and liabilities have to be taken
simultaneously,As the petitioners of Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 were the employees of the
dissolved Society, this Court expects that the
State shall take into account the services
rendered by them and shall take a decision with
regard to the payment of their dues, to which
they claim.

26. It is made clear that this Court has not
gone into the merits of the claim of the
employees with regard to their wages.

27. As the Society has been dissolved, the
land of the Society stands vested in the State
after the cancellation of the lease and the
administration is now with the committee
constituted by the District Magistrate, this Court
directs that the Committee constituted by the
District Magistrate vide order dated 26.7.2021
shall take into consideration the contentions of
the workers and if required the District
Magistrate will pass requisite orders keeping in
view the welfare of the employees.

28. The writ petition being Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 is disposed off with directions
that the petitioner shall approach the District
Magistrate by filing their representation, which
shall be considered by the District Magistrate,
Kanpur either himself or through a Committee to
be appointed by him with regard to the arrears of
wages claimed by them and with regard to their
occupation on the land of the Society. This
measure is being directed only on humanitarian
grounds as the petitioners do not have any legal
rights over property.

29. In the peculiar facts of the case
following directions are issued:

i) The Chief Secretary, State of UP is
directed to take all requisite measures to
expeditiously
establish
a
multi
speciality
hospital over the land in question in terms of
decision of the State Government and to ensure
that the valuable assets as handed over by the
erstwhile society to the State in terms of their
resolution are not frittered away.

ii)The District Magistrate, shall take
immediate steps to take control of the properties
and administration of the hospital and all its
activities.

iii)The District Magistrate is directed
to constitue a committee comprising of reputed
Doctors and administrative officers for ensuring
the running of hospital and allied services till
finalization
and
establishment
of
Multi
Speciality Hospital as already decided by the
State.

iv) The District Magistrate shall take
into consideration the welfare of the employees
of the erstwhile society in respect of their claims
against the society and shall also consider either
employing/absorbing,
continuing
them
in
running of Hospital administration in the light of
directions given above.

v) The District Magistrate shall
consider the issue of occupation of premises by
the employees of the erstwhile society and shall
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also consider relocating them to an alternative
property elsewhere.

vi)
The
District
Magistrate
is
authorised to use such other measures as may be
required to execute the directions given herein
above.

30. It is clarified that the petitioners no 3
and petitioner no 4 of Writ-C No. 14759 of 2021
will be at liberty to approach the Principal Court
of original civil jurisdiction in accordance with
law, if so advised, the other Petitioners in the
said petition shall also be at liberty to avail their
remedies before Civil Court in accordance with
law if so advised.

31. The writ petition being Writ-C No.
14759 of 2021 is dismissed and Writ-A No.
13256 of 2021 is disposed off in terms of the
order passed above.

32. In view of the order passed above,
Writ-C No. 17749 of 2019 and Writ-C No.
17779 of 2019 are rendered infructuous as
pleaded in paragraph no. 40 of Writ Petition No.
14759 of 2021 and as I have held that all the
rights can be agitated only before the principal
Court of original civil jurisdiction, however, no
orders are being passed in the said two cases as I
have not heard the learned counsels in the said
cases. The said two petitions shall be placed
before the appropriate court.
----------
(2021)11ILR A654
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 7140 of 2021

Saurabh Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
R.B.I. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

A. Employment/Service Law - Termination -
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 - Section 22; Constitution
of India - Article 12.

Constitution of India: u/Art. 226 - Writ
jurisdiction - Maintainability - The private
banks
would
be
amenable
to
the
writ
jurisdiction for breach of any of the statutory
provision under which it is incorporated or
bound to be governed, but the services of the
employee of a private bank is contractual and
governed as per the Rules framed by the Bank/
employer. In the instant case, petitioner is governed
by Discipline and Appeal Rules, and the Code of
Conduct, as applicable on the employees of the Bank.
(Para 7)

Respondent-bank is a private sector bank duly
incorporated and having licence under Banking
Regulation Act, 1949. Reserve Bank of India is
entrusted with the full responsibility for supervising
and regulating the banks, including, private banks.
U/s 22 of the Act, 1949, private banks are required to
obtain licence from RBI to carry out the banking
business in India. Petitioner does not dispute that the
conditions of service governing the petitioner are not
statutory. The terms and conditions of employment
are purely contractual governed under rules framed
by the Bank. (Para 6, 15)

B. For a public law remedy enforceable
u/Article 226, the action of a person or the
authority need to fall in the realm of public law.
The question is required to be determined in
each case. (Para 13)

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 function. 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. The statutory