1.

Bombay High Court

The Shamrao Vithal Co-Operative ... vs Padubidri Pattabhiram Baht And ... on 28
August, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR 1993 Bom 91, 1993 (1) MhLj 1
Author: M S Manohar
Bench: M S Manohar, . B Saraf, S Kapadia

ORDER MRS Sujata Manohar, J.

1. The appellants Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. are a multi-State Co-operative
Society. The appellant-society is deemed to have been registered under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act 1960 as well as the Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act 1984.
The appellants carry on the business of banking. The 1st respondent had filed a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court challenging the resolution of the appellant
Bank dated 21st of May 1987 and the consequent termination of his services by the
appellant-Bank. A learned single Judge of this Court, by his judgment and order dated 31st
March 1989, allowed the petition and ordered reinstatement of the first respondent with
backwages as set out in the judgment and order. From this judgment the present appeal was
filed by the appellants.

2. One of the questions which the learned single Judge was called upon to decide was
whether the appellant Bank was "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
and whether the writ petition was maintainable against the appellants. The learned single
Judge, by his above judgment and order, held that the appellants Bank was "State" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and hence a writ was maintainable against the
appellants.

3. The appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of
Pendse and Kapadia, JJ. The Division Bench, in its judgment and order dated 26th February
1992, referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in the case of
Narayan Balaji Bhanage v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank
Limited, . The Division Bench of this High Court at Nagpur had held that the Maharashtra
State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited is "State" within the meaning of Article
12 of the Constitution. It approved the judgment of the learned single Judge herein. The
Division Bench at Bombay observed that it is difficult to share the view of the Division
Bench at Nagpur in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court. But it would not be
proper for it to take a contrary view because of the decision of the Division Bench at Nagpur.
Hence it has referred the following issue to a larger bench for determination :--
"Whether a co-operative society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984
falls within the expression "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India."

We are therefore required to consider this question.

4. A similar question had arisen in a number of matters before various High Courts and the
Supreme Court. We do not propose to refer to all the decisions which have been cited before
us. We will refer to a few of the leading decisions on this question.

5. In the case of Ramana Davaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, ,
the Supreme Court considered the question when a corporate body can be considered as
"State" within Article 12. The Supreme Court said that the Government may act through the
instrumentality or agency of natural persons; or it may employ the instrumentality or agency
of juridical persons to carry out its functions. In a welfare State the functions of Government
expand considerably; and often these new tasks are carried out through public corporations.
The Supreme Court said that it was not possible to formulate an all-inclusive or exhaustive
test which would adequately answer the question when such a corporation becomes an
instrumentality or agency of the Government: There are several factors which may have to be
considered in determining this question. The Supreme Court summarised its conclusions in
paragraph 19 at page 1641. It said, "We have referred to some of these factors and they may
be summarised as under : whether there is any financial assistance given by the State, and if
so, what is the magnitude of such assistance; whether there is any other form or assistance
given by the State, and if so, whether it is of the usual kind or it is extra ordinary, whether
there is any control of the management and policies of the corporation by the State and what
is the nature and extent of such control, whether the corporation enjoys State conferred or
State protected monopoly status and whether the functions carried out by the Corporation are
public functions closely related to governmental functions. This particularisation of relevant
factors is however not exhaustive and by its very nature it cannot be. Because with
increasing assumption of new lacks, growing complexities of management and
administration and the necessity of continuing adjustment in relations between the
corporation and the Government calling for flexibility, adaptability and innovative skills, it is
not possible to make an exhaustive enumeration of the tests which would invariably and in
all cases prove an unfailing answer to the question whether a corporation is governmental
instrumentality or agency. Moreover even amongst these factors which we have described,
no one single factor will yield a satisfactory answer to the question and the Court will have to
consider the cumulative effect of these various factors and arrive at its decision on the basis
of a particularised inquiry into the facts and circumstances of each case."

6. In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi the Supreme Court reiterated the test
land down in the case of Ramana Davaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of
India (supra) with a note of caution. It said (in paragraph 9 at page 496) "...while stressing
the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression other authorities", it must be
realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has
some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of
the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. The Supreme Court said that it is
immaterial whether the Corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is
whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created.
Specifically, if a department of the Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a
strong factor supportive of the inference of the corporation being an instrumentality or
agency of the Government.

7. Since these tests were enumerated, several occasions have arisen for applying these tests.
We will only consider one or two recent cases.

8. In the case of Tekraj Vasandi alias K. L. Basandhi v. Union of India the Supreme Court
had to consider whether the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is "Stare" within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court held that it is not "State" within the meaning of Article
12. While applying the above tests the Supreme Court once again observed that there cannot
indeed be a strait jacket formula. It is also not necessary that all the tests should be satisfied
for holding an institution to be "State". In a given case some of the features may emerge so
boldly and promiently that a second view may not be possible. There may yet be other cases
where the matter would be on the border line, and it would be difficult to take one view o the
other outright. The Supreme Court also said, in the same vein as in Ajay Hasia's case, that in
a welfare State Government control is very pervasive and in fact touches all aspects of social
existence. In the absence of a fair application of the tests, there is a possibility of turning
every non-governmental society into an agency or instrumentality of the State. That
obviously would not serve the purpose and may be far from reality. A broad picture of the
matter has to be taken and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping reality and human
experiences in view, so as to reach a reasonable conclusion. There are observations to the
same effect in the case of Chandra Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational
Research and Training .

9. We have to examine the constitution and functioning of the appellant Bank, which is a
multi-State co-operative society in the light of these tests in order to decide whether it falls
within the definition of a "State" under Article 12. The first aspect that we propose to
examine is the aspect of State's control over the appellants Bank. There are three important
pieces of legislation which regulate the functioning of the appellant-Bank. These are the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act,
1984, and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Report of the Expert Committee on Multi-
State Co-operative Societies Legislation, which -was submitted as far back as February 1972,
enunciates in Paragraph 3.9 the co-operative principles which have been since enacted in
the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 as well as earlier in the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960. The principles which have come to be recognised as
fundamental to co-operative organisations were initially enunciated by the Rochdale
Equitable Pioneers Society founded in 1844. These principles are :--

1. Democratic control.
2. Freedom for new members to join, i.e. the principle of open membership.

3. Payment of limited interest on capital.

4. Distribution of surplus among members in proportion of their transactions.

5. Political and religious neutrality.

6. Cash trading.

7. Education of members.

At paragraph 3.15 the Report refers to "Integrated Scheme of Rural Credit" and it sets out
that one of the basic principles of this Scheme is that the State should participate in the share
capital of various types of cooperatives at different levels to provide the initial momentum
and strength to co-operatives.

10. The Book "Training and Extension in the Co-operative Movement" produced by the
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations 1962 also sets out the basic
principles of co-operative movement. It says that certain essential features are seen in all
forms of co-operatives.

1. They consist of groups of people who join together to do something they cannot very well
do as individuals.

2. They aim to provide some service that is necessary or very desirable in the lives of the
people concerned.

3. They operate on the basis of self-help that is, the people involved look toward themselves
as a group for the solution of their problems.

4. They do business from the motive of service and not for the purpose of making a profit.

The same co-operative principles are set out, in the First Schedule to the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Some of the relevant principles are :

1. Membership of a multi-State co-operative society should be voluntary and open without

any social, political, or religious discrimination, to all persons who can make use of its
services.

2. In a society other than that with institutional membership, individual member should enjoy
equal rights of voting -- one member, one vote.

3. Surplus or savings, if any, arising out of the operations of the society belong to the society
as a whole, and no individual member has a claim to the surplus.
................

7. The affairs of a society should be administered by the management in accordance with

democratically expressed will of the members.

8. The management of the society is accountable to its own members.

These principles find expression in various sections of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies

Act, 1984. For example, S. 19 provides for membership, S. 22 provides for one vote for one
member. S. 29 provides that subject to the rules and bye-law the ultimate authority of a
multi-State Co-operative Society shall vest in the general body of its members. S. 30
provides for an annual general meeting of the general body, inter alia, to elect members of
the Board. S. 32 provides for a Board of Directors of such a society and S. 42 defines the
powers and functions of such a Board, This includes, inter alia, the power to appoint a Chief
Executive and such other employees of the society in whom, under S. 45 of the Act, the day
to day management of the business of the multi-State Co-operative Society is entrusted.
These provisions clearly indicate that the ultimate control and management of a multi-State
Co-operative Society vests in the general body of its members subject, of course, to the
provisions of the Act.

11. Section 47. of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act does provide to the Central

Government power to give directions in the public interest. It states that if the Central
Government is satisfied that in the public interest or for the purposes of securing proper
implementation of co-operative production and other developmental programmes approved
or undertaken by the Central Government, or to secure proper management of the business of
the multi-State cooperative societies generally, or for preventing the affairs of the multi-State
cooperative society being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the members,
any depositors or creditors thereof, it is necessary to issue directions to any class of multi-
State co-operative societies generally or to any multi-State co-operative society or societies
in particular, the Central Government may issue directions. This is a general power of
supervision and power to give directions in public interest. It does not prescribe or entail a
deep or all pervasive control of the State over the functioning of a multi-State co-operative
society which would make it an agency or instrumentality of the State.

12. There are similar provisions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
also. For example, under S. 72 of this Act the final authority of every society registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 shall vest in a general body of
members in general meeting, summoned in such a manner as may be specified in the bye-
laws. Section 73 provides that the management of every society shall vest in a committee,
constituted in accordance with this Act, the rules and bye-laws, which shall exercise such
powers and perform such duties as may be conferred by this Act, the rules and the bye-laws.
Therefore, under the general legislation dealing with co-operative societies and also under
the special legislation dealing with multi-State co-operative societies, there are clear
provisions which would indicate that these societies have to be run on co-operative
principles. Final authority vests in the members of the societies. Such societies, in our view,
cannot be considered as instrumentalities of the State.

13. The Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. i.e. the appellant bank was registered under
the Co-operative Societies Act, 1904, Since then it is deemed to be registered under the Co-
operative Societies Act, 1912; the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925; the Multi Unit
Co-operative Societies Act, 1942; the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
and Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. It is a cooperative bank within the meaning
of S. 2(10) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It is a society which is
doing the business of banking under S. 5(1)(b) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. It is
deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 with effect
from 18th August, 1984. The bye-laws of the said bank set out the objects of the bank in
Chapter III. The objects of the said Bank are to encourage thrift and promote co-operation
among its members and to carry on in Bombay and at such other places as may from time to
time be decided, with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and the Registrar where
necessary, the business of banking including borrowing, raising or receiving money from
members, non-members, societies, companies, trusts or associations. Under Chapter IV
dealing with funds of the said Bank, the Bank is required to raise funds in the following ways
:

(i) by issue of shares;

(ii) by receiving deposits;

(iii) by raising loans;

(iv) by donations; etc. Under clause 5(b) of Chapter IV of the Bye-laws, as amended
after Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 came into force, it is provided that the
authorised share capital of the bank shall be Rs. 5,00,00,000/- divided into 20,00,000 shares
of Rs. 25/- each and the same may be increased or reduced with the previous sanction of the
General Body, subject to the approval of the Central Registrar, Chapter VI deals with
allotment of shares. Chapter VIII deals with transfer of interest and nomination. Chapter VIII
deals with General Meeting. Bye-laws 36 of Chapter VIII provides as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of the Act, the final authority of the Bank shall vest in the General
Body of members in General Meeting in the manner specified hereinafter."

Bye-laws 38 deals with the functions of the Annual General Meeting. Bye-law 39 deals with
Special General Meeting. Bye-law 46 inter alia lays down that at the General Meeting all
questions shall be decided by a majority of those present and voting. Chapter IX of the Bye-
laws deals with the power of the Board of Directors. Bye-law 60 deals with the power of the
Board of Directors including the power to make appointment of salaried employees, power
to incur expenditure for carrying on business of the bank etc. Chapter IX-A of the Bye-laws
deals with the power, functions and duties of the Chief Executive. Chapter XII deals with
Secretary and Manager. Chapter XIII deals with power to give loans. Chapter XVII deals
with constitution of the Reserve Fund of the co-operative bank.

14. A bare perusal of the above bye-laws indicates clearly that there is no deep and pervasive
control of the Government over the said bank.

15. The learned single Judge placed much importance on the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
which applies to the appellant-society because it also happens to be a co-operative bank. In
the first place, all provisions of the Banking Regulation Act do not apply to cooperative
banks. Section 3(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 states that nothing in this Act shall
apply to (a) a primary agricultural credit society, (b) a co-operative land mortgage bank and
(c) any other co-operative society, except in the manner and to the extent specified in Part V.
Part V makes substantial departures from the Banking Regulation Act as far as co-operative
banks are concerned. Some of the sections of the Act on which the learned single Judge has
relied, do not apply to co-operative banks. Thus, for example S. 35-B under which
amendments of provisions relating to appointments of managing directors, etc., are subject to
the previous approval of the Reserve Bank, do riot apply (o a co-operative bank. Even if we
assume broadly that under the Banking Regulation Act the Reserve Bank has regulatory
powers over all kinds of banks including co-operative banks, that, in our view, is not
sufficient to make such organisations, agencies or instrumentalities of the State. We have a
large number of such regulatory kinds of organisations. For example, the Companies
Act regulates the working of public and private limited companies in the country. This
Act lays down detailed provisions, for example, regarding the manner of holding annual
general meetings, the manner of holding meetings of the Board of Directors, how resolutions
have to be passed by these bodies, how these companies have to be registered or wound up
and so on. This does not make such companies, agencies or instrumentalities of the State
simply because the State has enacted a law to regulate the working of such companies.  The
Indian Partnership Act regulates the functioning of partnership firms. Such regulatory laws
cannot be construed ipso facto as providing full or substantial State control over the
functioning of the organisations governed by such laws. The Banking Regulation Act, 1949
also does not prescribe any all pervasive stale control over all banks covered by it which
would make the banks an agency or instrumentality of the State. The learned single Judge
has erred in relying so heavily on it.

16. In a number of cases the different High Courts have been required to consider whether a
co-operative society can be considered as a State under Article 12. To a Full Bench decision
in the case of P. Bhaskaran v. Additional Secretary, Agricultural (Co-operation) Department,
Trivandrum, , the Kerala High Court negatived the contention that a co-operative society can
be considered as an instrumentality or agency of the State. The Kerala High Court observed
that in the case of a cooperative society there is no deep and pervasive state control. The
management of the societies does not vest in the Government or in the representatives of the
Government. The management is under the effective control of a committee elected by the
members of the societies. The statutory regulation or restriction in the functioning of the
societies is not "an imprint of State under Article 12".
17. In the case of Banabihari Tripathy v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies , the Full Bench
of the Orissa High Court has also held that a cooperative society, on merely getting
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, does not acquire any status of becoming an
authority to render it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The supervisory
powers given to the Registrar are with a view to securing better working of the societies and
to give them guidance of well trained and expert officers. That by itself does not make such a
society "State" under Article 12.

18. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of R. Thamilarasan v.

Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras, reported in 1989 (1) Labour Law Journal, 388
has also come to the same conclusion. We respectfully agree with these judgments.

19. It is, however, submitted that a cooperative bank, as in the present case, performs an
important public function and that itself is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that it is
"State" under Article 12. It is submitted before us that in a welfare State the definition of
"governmental function" has to be widened to include within its scope all functions which
are of public importance. Hence any organisation which performs a public function must be
considered as State under Article 12. In our view, this is too broad a proposition. We have to
bear in mind the note of caution sounded by the Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasai
(supra) and Tekraj Vasandi (re. the Institution of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies
supra). Every organisation which carries out a function which is of public importance does
not necessarily become "State" under Article 12. Conferment of "Statehood" depends upon
various other factors also, such as the nexus of such organisations with the State, the extent
of State control, whether it is entirely financed by the State or by private individuals,
whether, the same function was originally carried out by a Department of the State and so on.
There may be many functions of public importance which can be performed by private
organisation also. We have a large number of organisations doing important social work vital
to the community. There are, for example, organisations which look after, educate and train
handicapped persons or the blind, provide them with jobs and rehabilitate them. There are
private charitable organisations which may provide free or subsidised housing to the poor or
free medical aid. They may supply text-books to poor students, freeships and scholarships.
There may be private organisation engaged in transport of goods and men. They perform
functions which are, undoubtedly of public importance; and they subserve a public need. But
this does not necessarily make such organisations "State" under Art. 12. Banking is
undoubtedly a function of public importance. In fact, the nationalised banks do carry out
these functions under the control of the State. But that does not mean that banks which are
not so controlled, or banks which are set up by private organisations or co-operative societies
become" State" under Article 12. In a welfare State, many activities which are often carried
on by private organisations are undertaken by the State, in such cases the Supreme Court has
said that we must look at the overall position of the organisation in the light of the other tests
also, especially when the function of the organisation is not such as can be carried on only by
the State or is not connected with governmental functions.
20. In the case of Som Prakash v. Union of India, , the Supreme Court was required to
consider whether Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was "State" within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court said (at page 224) that if the functions
of the Corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it
would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of
Government. But the decisions show that even this test of public or govern-

mental character of the function is not easy of application and does not invariably lead to the
correct inference because the range of governmental activity is broad and varied, and merely
because an activity may be such as may legitimately be carried on by Government, it does
not mean that a corporation, which is otherwise a private entity, would be an instrumentality
or agency of Government by reason of carrying on such activity. Therefore, simply because
an organisation carries on an activity of public importance, it does not automatically become
"State" under Art. 12, unless it also fulfills some of the other tests.

21. In the case of Sri Kohaseema Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetarama Raju,
reported in AIR 1990 Andh Pra 171 (1990 Lab IC (NOC) 63), the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court held that a cooperative bank did not perform functions of public
importance which were closely related to governmental functions and hence declined to
characterise a co-operative bank as "State" under Art. 12.

22. In the case of Pritamsingh Gill v. State of Punjab and Haryana, , the Full Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Punjab State Co-operative Land Mortgage
Bank registered under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act was not instrumentality of the
State and hence was not "other authority" within the meaning of Art. 12.

23. In the case of V. I. Khalifa v. Satubha Tanubhal Vaghela, reported in 1988 (1) Gujarat
Law Reporter 679 a single Judge of the Gujarat High Court also held that a cooperative bank
was not State under Art. 12 because there was nothing in the bye-laws of the society to
suggest that there was any overriding control over the bank by the State in its management.
Our attention was, however, drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of State Bank of India v. Kalbaka Transport Company, . In that case the Division
"Bench noted that the State Bank of India and its subsidiaries are statutory corporations. In
making several appointments forming the structure of these Corporations, the Government's
role is quite clear. Even in the matter of laying down policy involving public interest, the
State Bank shall be guided by the directions given by the Central Government in consultation
with the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Chairman of the State Bank of India. And if
any question arises whether a direction relates to a matter of policy involving public interest,
the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final. The Court said that the
nationalised banks are the agencies of the Government which has a large hand in controlling
their policies. It said, it cannot be forgotten that it is the voice and the hand of the State that
is effectively felt in all the activities of nationalised banks. The Court also added that
banking, undoubtedly, is an activity vital to the life of the community and it is undoubtedly a
business of great public importance. This being the nature of the institution and also its
powers, there cannot be any doubt that the State Bank of India is either "State" or "other
authority" within the meaning of that expression in Art. 12.These observations do not apply
to the present case. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court took into account the fact
that the Central Government had a controlling hand over the State Bank of India and other
nationalised banks. It was this factor coupled with the nature of the functions performed by
the State Bank of India that led the Court to the conclusion that the State Bank of India was
"State" under Article 12.

24. A Multi-State Co-operative Bank cannot be compared, in the manner of its functioning,
with the State Bank of India at all. As set out earlier, the Central Government does not have
any all pervasive control over a Multi-State Co-operative Bank. Hence, merely because
banking function is of public importance, this factor itself is not sufficient to make the
appellant bank "State" or "other authority" under Article 12.

25. In the case of Narayan v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd.,
the Nagpur Bench of our High Court held that the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land
Development Bank Limited was "State" or "other authority" under Art. 12. In doing so, the
Nagpur Bench relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge in the present case. The
Nagpur Bench relied upon two factors only for the purpose of holding that the Maharashtra
Slate Co-operative Land Development Bank was "State" within the meaning of Art. 12. It
said (at page 474) that the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited
is a creature of the statute and it is discharging public functions which the State could have
discharged through its agency. Hence it held that the Bank was a State. In our opinion, the
Division Bench, over emphasised the fact that the Bank was a creature of the statute. As the
Supreme Court has repeatedly said, the manner in which an organisation is created is not of
any direct relevance. What is required to be seen is whether there is pervasive State control
over its management and functioning. Moreover, merely because an organisation performs
functions of public importance, one cannot hold that the organisation is "State" under Article
12. The only other factor which the Nagpur Bench looked at was the fact that the Bank was
regulated by laws enacted by the State. Such regulatory laws as we have said earlier, arc
enacted to cover a large number of organisations. The laws which regulate the functioning of
such organisations are presumably enacted in public interest. This does not mean that any of
these organisations, if they perform public functions, automatically become "State"
under Article 12. In our view the above decision does not apply tests to determine when an
organisation can be considered as "State" under Art. 12, correctly.

26. In the present case, for reasons set out above we are of the view that the learned single
Judge erred in holding that the appellant Bank is "State" under Art. 12.

27. Accordingly, we answer the (issue) which is referred to us as follows :

28. A co-operative society, registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960 and under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, which
carries on the business of banking, and is therefore governed by the Banking Regulation Act,
1949 does not thereby fall within the expression "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution
of India. The appellant bank cannot, therefore, be considered as "State" under Art. 12.
29. A writ cannot, therefore, be maintained against the appellant bank. This disposes of the
entire appeal. Hence the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed.

30. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

31. Appeal allowed.