Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Murli Manohar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manu Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent -Bank.
(2.) The petitioner has assailed the termination letter dated 04.01.2016 whereby he had been terminated from service by Senior Vice President, Human Resource Division, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. Mumbai i.e. opposite party No. 2(in short Bank).
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent -Bank had raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He contended that the H.D.F.C. Bank is purely a private Bank which is being purely maintained by private personnel. In writ petition No. 964 (SB) of 2011 which was filed before this Court, against ICICI Bank Ltd. which is similar to HDFC Bank, this Court held as under: - - "13. It is settled proposition of law that a writ of mandamus may be issued under writ jurisdiction in case there is violation of statutory provisions or there is violation of statutory duty by the authority. Ordinarily, writ of certiorari may not be issued against the order passed by the private bodies like respondent Bank but a mandamus may be issued to discharge statutory obligation in public interest. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to satisfy the Court that some statutory duty may be cast upon the respondents or the petitioner possesses some statutory right and for whose enforcement this Court may interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of mandamus to discharge their statutory obligations. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition seems to be not maintainable. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum to ventilate his grievance. It is clarified that we have not entered into the merit of the case.";