Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) The respondent-Bank resists this writ petition on the basic ground that it is not maintainable. It is claimed that the respondent-Bank cannot be regarded as ''State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P S Naidu vs Chittoor District Co-operative Central Bank (1) 1977 (2) APLJ 282. The dicision of the Division Bench undoubtedly supports the learned counsel.
(2.) I have some reservations about the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench. The respondent-Bank is governed by all the regulations of the Reserve Bank of India and is amenable to its control and supervision. It discharges public functions. The control and supervision exercised by the Reserve Bank would, in my view, bring the respondent Bank within the ambit of "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution. As I am bound by the Division Bench, I cannot possibly take a view contrary to the one taken by the Division Bench. I think it expedient that the matter is placed before a Division Bench for appropriate consideration. I may also state that the Earned counsel for the respondent-Bank relies on the decision of a learned single Judge in Ranga Reddy vs Co-op. Electricity Supply Society Ltd. (2) 1977 ALT 172. This decision also supports the view canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent- Bank.
(3.) Place the papers before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for referring the matter to a Division Bench. Mr. M. Surya Rao, Advocate (W.C) for the Petitioner. Mr. G. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. In pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 19-4-1988 referring W P to a Division Bench this petition coming on for hearing on this the 20th day of January, 1989 before the Hon'ble Mr Justice Jeevan Reddy and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed therein and the material papers connected thereto and the Order of this Court dt; 19-4-1988 and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the court delivered the following:-;