IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.423 of 2006 Shailendra Nath son of Birendra Nath, resident of B/24, Police Colony, Anishabad, District-Patna-800 002, the Proprietor of D.R. Printers. ---- -----------------------------------------------------------------------Appellant. Versus 1. State Bank Of India local Head Office, through its Chief General Manager, Mahendru, Ghat, Patna-1 2. Circle Stationary Department, State Bank of India, Patna, through its Assistant General Manager, Patna-13. 3. Chief General Manager, Personnel and Human Resources Department, State Bank of India, local Head Office, Patna-4 4. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Circle Stationary Department, Patna-13-----------------------------------------------------Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the respondent-Bank : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mukundji, Advocate ----------- 6. 18.11.2011 This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order dated 4.5.2006 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W. J. C. no.12452 of 2004 wherein the appellant has chosen to question Clause-1 of the general terms and conditions governing the empanelment as required in the Memorandum of Instructions (Annexure-2 to writ petition) of the Respondent-Bank (State of Bank of India). The contention raised before the learned single Judge as well as before us is that general terms and conditions of Clause-1 of the Memorandum of Instruction are in violation of fundamental rights of the appellant to do business with the bank as his brother was working as Assistant in the Respondent-Bank situated at Patna. Learned single Judge had heard the matter at length and perusal of the judgment goes to show that learned single Judge has held that in view of the provision of Clause-1 of the 2 impugned Memorandum of Instructions it does not appear that there is violation of appellant’s fundamental rights, as argued. Perusal of the Memorandum of Instruction would go to show that restrictions imposed in the Clause-1 are reasonable restrictions in the case of empanelment in Bank so as to avoid the relatives of Bank employees having been engaged in the business of the Bank. As it is a reasonable restrictions on the part of the empanelment, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge is well considered and needs no interference. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J. )