The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 does not depend solely on whether the respondent is “State” under Article 12, but on the existence of a public law element and the nature of the functions performed.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the former General Manager/CEO of the Urban Cooperative Bank, Anantnag, Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that a Cooperative Bank carrying on banking business by accepting public deposits under the regulatory framework of the RBI performs a public function and is amenable to writ jurisdiction as “any person or authority” under Article 226.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association, the Court observed, “The focus has gradually shifted from the formal character of the body against whom relief is sought to the nature of the function performed, the source of power exercised, and the effect of the impugned action on legally protected rights.”
The Court further held, “For maintaining of a Writ Petition under Article 226… the existence of a public law element and the effect of the impugned action on the rights of the affected person are the decisive factors.” It added that “The business involves public money, depositor protection and financial system stability… This supports amenability to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as ‘any person or authority’ performing public functions.”
On merits, the Court held that the petitioner’s extension beyond the statutory retirement age of 58 years under SRO 233 of 1988 was without legal authority, observing that the Board of Management lacked statutory competence to grant such extension. Holding the extension void ab initio, the Court upheld the relieving orders and dismissed the writ petition.
Discover more from Bench&Law
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.