YOGENDRA MUNDRA Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction against the respondents -ICICI Bank for quashing and setting aside the order dated 16/12/2013, and the order dated 14/4/2014 on the ground of being arbitrary and illegal, and further seeking direction to pay the full pension to the petitioner.

(2.) AT the outset, the learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari for the respondents appearing on caveat has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents -Bank, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors., : (2003) 10 SCC 733, and the unreported judgments of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/2013, Shivgiri Swami Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18653/2012, Tej Singh Meena vs. General Manager, ICICI Bank, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1349/2003, Smt. Meena Devi vs. Bank of Rajasthan & Ors. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5803/2014, Mahesh Kumar Somani vs. The ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. However, in response to the said objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the various decisions of the Apex Court in cases of Deokinandan Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, : AIR 1971 SC 1409(1), Shri Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V.R. Rudani & Ors, : AIR 1989 SC 1607(1), M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. & Anr. vs. U.O.I. & Ors., : AIR 2005 SC 2677(1) & Akalakunnam Village Service Co -op. Bank Ltd. vs. Bindu N., 2014 9 Scale 473 to submit that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the State, or authorities or persons for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.

(3.) IT has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel Mr. C.P. Sharma for the petitioner that the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against any authority including any person. It cannot be gain said that Article 226 confers wide powers on the High Courts to issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs, and such writs could be issued to any person or authority for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. However, if the rights are purely of a private character, no mandamus could be issued. The person or authority covered under Article 226 must owe an obligation to discharge a public duty. In the opinion of the Court, the decision of Apex Court in case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel Mr. Ajeet Bhandari for the respondents clinches the issue. In the said case, the Apex Court considering all other earlier judgments has also held in para Nos. 26, 32 & 33, as under: -