High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Monika Chopra v. Union Of India Thru' Finance Secry. Goi And Others - WRIT - C No. 27952 of 2007  RD-AH 11369 (6 July 2007)
Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 27952 of 2007
Monika Chopra vs Union of India & Others
: Present :
(Hon'ble Mr.Justice Amitava Lala & Hon'ble Mr.Justice Shishir Kumar)
For the Petitioners ...... Sri B.B.Paul,
For the Respondent No.1 ...... Sri Syed Atiq Ahmad
For the Respondents No.2&3 ...... Sri Maneesh Trivedi
Amitava Lala,J. - This writ petition has been filed against the I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, for the purpose of getting an appropriate order as against the claim of such Bank and also certiorari quashing the seizure memo dated 24th March,2007 issued by the respondent No.3. Before entertaining the writ petition we are of the view that we have to ascertain whether the writ can lie against the private Bank or not. We have been fortified with the judgement reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Others) wherein it has been categorically held as;
"merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5 ( c) (a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to those provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself".
Therefore, according to us writ cannot lie against the private Bank in the manner as proposed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner cited a judgement before this court reported in 2007 (3) ADJ 211 (SC) Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. Vs Prakash Kaur and Others to establish that in spite of the same fact and being the same party to a proceeding the Supreme Court interfered and passed necessary order.
Such submissions suffers from misconception of law. The proceeding before the Supreme Court arose out of judicial order in the criminal writ jurisdiction where under a point was taken by the contesting party that the dispute is purely civil in nature and did not want any direction as has been given. Ultimately, the Bank shows his willingness to compromise and an order was passed,therefore, such ratio cannot be applicable in the present case. Similarly judgement passed by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J, sitting singly is arising out the judicial order of the Debt Recovery Proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court was pleased to consider the same,under order dated 8th June,2007 in Writ Petition No.26837 of 2007 (Ravi Shanker Shukla vs Debts Recovery and Others). A writ petition under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may arise in such circumstances but not directly against an action of a private Bank which is squarely hit by the judgement (2003)10 SCC 733 (supra).
Therefore, the writ petitions stand dismissed.
No order is passed as to cost.
However, passing of the order will not prevent the petitioner to proceed before the appropriate court of law, if so advised.
(Justice Amitava Lala)
(Justice Shishir Kumar)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.