Karnataka Bank Is Not A 'State'; Cannot Issue Writ Of Mandamus: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court held that the Karnataka Bank is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of Indiia as it cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty.
The Court was deciding a writ petition against Karnataka Bank Limited which refused to permit the petitioner to withdraw the fixed deposits of Rs. 1,34,37,826/-.
A Single Bench of Justice K.V. Aravind observed, “Though the respondent-Bank is engaged in public finance and regulated by Reserve Bank of India, it cannot be termed as an Institution or Company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the authorities not contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty H. appeared for the petitioner while Advocates Nataraja Ballal and A. Ganesh appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
As per the petitioner-customer, the respondent, a person filed an application before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and in the said suit, the petitioner was not made as a party. The said respondent filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking temporary injunction against the banks prohibiting defendants from allowing any person to withdraw the amounts. The Trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction and the same was affecting the rights of the petitioner.
As the fixed deposits were standing in the name of the petitioner, he filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC to implead himself as defendant no. 13. The Trial Court vacated the temporary injunction and in this view, the petitioner made representations to the Bank to release the FD amounts for personal necessities. However, the Bank was unable to allow the same and suggested him to get clarification from the Court.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “Learned counsel for the respondents has raised jurisdictional issue of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by contending that the second respondent-Bank is not a "State" in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court referred to some cases such as The Prestige Monte Carlo Apartment Owner's Association and others v. The Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai and others (2015 SCC OnLine Kar 5773), Phoenix Arc Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others (2022) 5 SCC 345, etc.
The Court, therefore, noted, “In view of the above discussion and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be rejected. In view of dismissal of writ petition on the ground of maintainability, other issues urged by the parties are kept open.”
The Court concluded that the writ petition is not maintainable under the Article 226 of the Constitution as the Bank is not a ‘State’ under Article 12.
“The petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the writ petition.
Cause Title- Rajesh Kumar Shetty v. T. Subbaya Shetty and Anr.
