VAIBHAV SAMUEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary question which arises in this petition is that whether the writ petition would lie against the respondent HDFC Bank which is admittedly a private Corporate Bank registered under the Companies Act and has not been incorporated under a Statute. Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Gopal Prasad Varshney Versus Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., reported in 2009 (2) ILR (Raj.) 601, wherein Full Bench of this Court held that writ petition would not be maintainable against a Bank incorporated under the Companies Act namely Bank of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Zee Tele Films Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2677, has held as under:-

(2.) This Court is of the view that judicial discipline demands that once a Full Bench of this Court has taken a view, a Single Judge would not question the same unless there is a subsequent judgment which has come from the Supreme Court taking a different view. Judicial Discipline and law of precedents have been aptly discussed by the Apex Court in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others, (2008) 10 SCC 1 that apart in another case reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733, Federal Bank Limited vs. Sagar Thomas and Ors., the Apex Court has held as under:-

(3.) The said judgment was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Gopal Prasad Varshney vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (supra), and it was held as under:-