R. A. Sharma, J. - (1.) STANDARD Chartered Bank respondent no. 3, (herein after referred to as the Bank) is a banking company incorporated in England with limited liability by Royal Charter having its registered office at 1, Aldermanbury Square, London, petitioner was an employee of the Bank working in its office at Kanpur. By order dated 3-8-1993 petitioner has been removed from service by the Bank. It is against this order that he has filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the working of the petitioner in the Bank as Staff Omcer and further to pay him salary regularly and not to give effect to the aforesaid order of termination, has also been made. This Court 3-12-1993 has granted an interim order staying the operation of the above order of termination of service.
(2.) AT the thresh-hold, a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition has been raised on behalf of respondents, which has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is this question which is to be decided first. In the case of Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1980 SC 1607, relevant extract from which is reproduced below. Supreme Court has laid down that writ cannot be issued by a High Court if rights art purely of private character or if the person or authority is private body with no public duty. "If the rights are purely off a private character no mandamus can issue. If the management of the college is purely private body with no public duty mandamus will not lie. These are the two exceptions to Mandamus" Although the above observations have been made with regard to mandamus but same principles will apply in the case of writ of certiorari also. This. Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ to any person or authority within the territory in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, but the "person" or a "authority" should be either statutory authority or agency or Instrumentality of the State. They may also cover any other person or authority performing public duty. Private persons or private bodies are not amenable to writ jurisdiction unless they exercise some statutory powers or discharge public duty. Supreme Court In the above case of Sri Anandi Mukta Sadguru has, in this connection, laid down as under : "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 owed by the person or authority to the affected party." Questions which arc required to be decided for resolving this controversy in the instant case are (i) Whether the right which is being asserted by the petitioner is of private character, and (ii) whether the Bank is a private body with no public duty.
(3.) BANK is neither governmental authority nor agency or instrumentality of the State and as such is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is private banking company incorporated in England under the Royal Charter and is carrying on business in India at various places including Kanpur. There are no statutory Rules or Regulations framed for regulating the conditions of service of the employees of the BANK. Petitioner has been employed by the BANK under an agreement of employment, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, under which his service can be terminated by the BANK after three months' notice or three months' pay in lieu thereof. Right to work in the BANK which petitioner claims is right which is derived from agreement which has been executed by him with the BANK and this agreement is not a statutory agreement. Right which the petitioner wants to be enforced by means of this writ petition is of private character. For enforcing such a right writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. No writ petition can be maintained even against the statutory authority where the impugned order has not been passed in exercise of statutory provisions, but has been passed under a non-statutory contract. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1076, wherein it was laid down as under: "There is a line of decisions where the contract entered into between the State and the persons aggrieved is non-statutory and purely contractual and the rights are governed only by the terms of the contract, no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple, Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (1977) 3 SCR 249, AIR 1977 SC 1496, Premji Bhai Parmar v. Delhi . Development Authority, (1980) 2 SCR 704 = AIR 1980 SC 738 and D.F.O. v. Biswanath Tea Company Ltd., (1981) 3 SCR 662 = AIR 1981 SC 1368." ;