2004 (2) TMI 363 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against a Co-operative Urban Bank
2. Classification of Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution
3. Public Duty and Functions of Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against a Co-operative Urban Bank
The primary issue addressed is whether a writ petition is maintainable against a Co-operative Urban Bank like Vasavi Bank. The court concluded that the writ petition filed against Vasavi Bank is not maintainable because it is a private entity and not a public authority. The court referenced several precedents, including the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, which held that a private bank does not attain the status of 'State' and cannot be treated as performing any public duty.

2. Classification of Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution
The court examined whether Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank could be classified as 'State' under Article 12. The judgment cited the Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology case, which established that an entity must be financially, functionally, and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government to be classified as 'State'. The court found that Vasavi Bank, being a private entity registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, does not meet these criteria and thus cannot be considered a 'State'.

3. Public Duty and Functions of Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank
The court also considered whether Vasavi Bank performs any public duty that would subject it to writ jurisdiction. It was determined that merely being regulated by statutory provisions does not make the bank a public authority. The judgment referenced the Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju case, which clarified that a co-operative society does not become a 'State' merely because it is regulated by statutory provisions. The court emphasized that Vasavi Bank does not perform governmental functions fundamental to the life of people and thus does not discharge any public duty.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank is not a 'State' under Article 12 and does not perform any public duty. Consequently, the writ petition is not maintainable and was dismissed. The court's decision is based on the interpretation of various precedents and the nature of Vasavi Bank's operations, which are not governmental or public in nature.