HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9134 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is instituted seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the first respondent-M/s. Federal Bank Limited, Hyderabad branch and the second respondent-Advocate Commissioner, City Civil Court Bar Association, Hyderabad in sealing and locking the premises No.8-2-351/W/3A, Plot No.3!, Navodaya Cooperative House Building Society, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, as illegal and unsustainable and to consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the lock and seal over the subject premises. 2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I should not be traversing the breadth and length of the pleadings set up by the parties. The first respondent to this writ petition is the Federal Bank. Federal Bank is a private bank entity. The question as to whether Federal Bank will answer the description of private body or falls within the definition of the state, within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India has fallen for consideration of the Supreme Court i n Federal Bank Limited Vs Sagar Thomas and Others[1]. After reviewing the entire case law on the subject, the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that Federal Bank does not answer the description of State for purpose of Article 12. In paragraph 32 of the said judgment, the issue is concluded in the following words. “For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don’t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Present is a case disciplinary action being taken against its employee by the appellant Bank. Respondent’s service with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.” 3. In view of this authoritative pronouncement on the subject by the Supreme Court, I cannot, but dismiss this writ petition as not maintainable. The parties are left the choice of working out the remedies available to them in accordance with law. It is needless for me to observe that with the dismissal of the writ petition, all such interlocutory orders / measures taken by this Court also stand dissolved. 4. WP.MP.No.12630 of 2011 has been moved seeking impleadment of the petitioner therein as respondent No.3 to the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition, the W.P.MP.No.12630 of 2011 is ordered. One week time is granted for carrying out the amendment. 5. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. _____________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao 30-08-2011 SP HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9134 OF 2011 30-08-2011 SP [1] AIR 2003 SC Vol (3) pg 4325