S.R.SINGH, J. - (1.) In the instant petitions, which are knit together with common question of law and fact, Sri Navin Sinha, appearing for the respondents prefaced his submissions with a preliminary objection and commiserated with the Court for decision thereon before embarking upon merits of the case. The preliminary objection raised by Sri Navin Sinha is that Banaras State Bank Limited, the respondent-employer herein is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. We have accordingly heard the counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
(2.) It brooks no dispute that Banaras State Bank Limited is a Banking Company incorporated as such under the provisions of the Banaras State Companies Act and is deemed to be a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956. It does not have the complexion of a Nationalised Bank. Rather, it is only a private sector Bank in which more than 93% shares, according to the averments made in the counter affidavit, are held by private individuals and the remaining 7% shares by the Union Bank of India. For the respondents, it is canvassed by Sri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate that the respondent Bank being neither 'State' nor 'other authority' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, does not submit itself to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Sri K. P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in opposition to the aforesaid submissions, submits that though Banaras State Bank Ltd. is a private company, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution inasmuch as its functions are in the nature of public functions and the employees of the Bank being its stretched arm, the petitioner has the right to approach this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution against any arbitrary action taken by the respondent Bank.
(3.) We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made across the Bar. It cannot be repudiated that Art. 226 of the Constitution can be invoked not only against 'State' or 'Instrumentality' of State but also against "any person or authority" in terms of the language employed in Art. 226 of the Constitution itself. The expression "any person or authority" used in Art. 226 of the Constitution embraces within its sweep and ambit not only "State" as defined in Art. 12 of the Constitution, but also every public body exercising statutory powers; every authority created by or under Statute; every non-statutory authority exercising public functions; and even an individual. The expression 'any authority' in Art. 226 has been used in liberal sense. In Shri Anadi Mukta S.M. V.S.S.J.M.S Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 : 1989 (2) SCC 691 : 1989-II-LLJ-324, the Supreme Court reiterated the same interpretation as under at p. 330 of LLJ: "The words 'any person or authority' used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to be confined only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any other person or body performing public duty. The form of the body concerned is not very much relevant, what is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owned by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied". And finally it was held as under at pp. 330, 331 of LLJ: "Here again we may point out that mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the Statute commenting on the development of this law, Professor DE SMITH states : 'To be enforceble by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute, it may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract'. We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226.";