High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petitions dismissed; contentions left open...
Rajeesh M.N. v Catholic Syrian Bank Limited; Mathew Ignitious.C v Catholic Syrian Bank Limited (W.P.(C). Nos. 14546/2019 and 14550/2019)
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.14546/2019(P) & WP(C).No.14550/2019(P)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Anu Sivaraman
- Judgment Date
- 2019-08-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that I am not interfering in the writ petitions, it is made clear that the contentions of the petitioners as to the legality of the orders of transfer have not been considered by this Court and are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petitions dismissed; contentions left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Rajeesh M.N.
- Mathew Ignitious.C
Respondents
- The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited represented by its Managing Director, CSB Bhavan, Thirssur, Kerala
- The Chief Manager (Staff), The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, CSB Bhavan, Thrissur, Kerala
- C.V. Rajendran, The Managing Director and CEO, The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, CSB Bhavan, Thrissur, Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • S. Krishnamoorthy
- • Nithya Sugunan
Case Synopsis & Summary
This judgment of a single-judge bench of the High Court of Kerala consolidates two writ petitions filed by managers of The Catholic Syrian Bank Limited challenging transfer orders issued by the bank. The petitioners allege that the transfers were punitive, motivated by their involvement with the Catholic Syrian Bank Officers’ Association, and supported by mala fides and extraneous considerations; they argue there is no legitimate rationale to transfer them out of the state. The petitioners’ theory relies on a broader principle that when a private entity performs public functions, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised to enforce public duties. They cite Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava and Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, suggesting that public law duties may bind private bodies. The bank counters with Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, contending that a scheduled bank, though private, does not discharge public functions and is not subject to writ jurisdiction for personnel matters. The court agrees with Federal Bank, reiterating that a scheduled bank cannot be treated as discharging public functions under Article 226, and thus the petitions are not maintainable. The judge clarifies that mandamus powers apply to enforce public duties and not to control private employment contracts, leaving the petitioners’ contentions about the transfer’s legality open for appropriate proceedings. The petitions are ultimately dismissed, with the court noting that the decision does not determine the legality of the transfers themselves.
Provisions of Law Cited
Constitution of India, Article 12Constitution of India, Article 226Companies Act
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Mala fides
- Public function doctrine / State under Article 12
- Mandamus jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the duty, not the identity of the authority
- Public law element required for writ against private bodies
- Public duty enforceable by writ of mandamus
- Public duty vs. private contracts or service matters
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the transfer orders issued by the bank are punitive and aimed at curbing union activity within the Catholic Syrian Bank Officers’ Association. They assert mala fides and extraneous considerations, with no legitimate basis for transferring them out of the state. They rely on authorities recognizing that private bodies performing public functions may be subject to writ jurisdiction where a public duty is involved, arguing that transfers impacting public duties and employment conditions may be amenable to Article 226 when public functions are implicated.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that the petition seeks to challenge private employment decisions of a private scheduled bank, which does not discharge public functions and therefore falls outside writ jurisdiction in light of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas. They emphasize that mandamus cannot be used to challenge private contracts or internal service matters, and rely on authorities delineating the scope of writs to enforce only public duties when such a public duty exists and is enforceable by law.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v. Asha Srivastava | 2019(2) KHC 929 (SC) | Positive | SC authority cited to support the proposition that private bodies discharging public functions may be subject to writ jurisdiction to enforce public duties. |
| Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab | (2012) 12 SCC 331 | Positive | Writ of mandamus can enforce public duties even if they are not statutory; supports the principle of enforcing public elements. |
| Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas | AIR 2003 SC 4325 | Positive | Held that a scheduled private bank cannot be treated as discharging public functions; writ under Article 226 not maintainable for service matters. |
| Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan | (2005) 6 KLT 657 | Positive | Principle cited that the scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority; supports public duty approach. |
| Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya | 2019(5) SCALE 559 | Positive | Cases where mandamus enforces public functions, not pure contracts or service matters, unless statutory regulation exists. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rajeesh M.N. v Catholic Syrian Bank Limited; Mathew Ignitious.C v Catholic Syrian Bank Limited (W.P.(C). Nos. 14546/2019 and 14550/2019) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No.14546 OF 2019(P)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**RAJEESH.M.N AGED 32 YEARS MANAGER GRADE I(EMP-53031), VELAPPAYA BRANCH, THE CATHOLIC SYRIN BANK LIMITED, THRISSUR, PIN-680001, RESIDING AT THRIKKARTHIKA HOUSE, PUTHUKKARA, AYYANTHOLDE.P.O, THRISSUR-680003**
**BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
- **1 THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CSB BHAVAN, ST.MAR'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR680020.**
- **2 THE CHIEF MANAGER(STAFF) THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.**
**3 C.V.RAJENDRAN, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR CEO, THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED, CSB BHAVAN, ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
## **SMT. LATHA ANAND SC**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).14550/2019(P), THE COURT ON 13-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
2
# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN**
**TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941**
**WP(C).No.14550 OF 2019(P)**
## **PETITIONER/S:**
**MATHEW IGNITIOUS.C, AGED 57 YEARS SENIOR MANAGAR(EMP-40614),THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,HEAD QUARTERS, THRISSUR,KERALA STATE,RESIDING AT PLEASANT HILL,FLAT NO.5/A,NEAR MICROWAVE STATION,MISSION QUARTERS,THRISSUR-680001.**
**BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
|**1**|**THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,**|
||**CSB BHAVAN,ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD,**|
||**THRISSUR-680020.**|
|**2**|**THE CHIEF MANAGER(STAFF),**|
||**THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,**|
||**CSB BHAVAN,ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD,**|
||**THRISSUR-680020.**|
|**3**|**C.V.RAJENDRAN,**|
||**THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO,**|
||**THE CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED,**|
||**CSB BHAVAN,ST.MARY'S COLLEGE ROAD,**|
||**THRISSUR-680020.**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).14546/2019(P), THE COURT ON 13-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
3
**ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).Nos.14546 & 14550 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of August, 2019**
## **JUDGMENT**
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.
2. These writ petitions are filed by persons working as Managers in the Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, challenging the orders of transfer served on them by the employer Bank. The contention of the petitioners is that the orders are issued as punishment for the petitioners' involvement in the activities of the Catholic Syrian Bank Officers' Association and are therefore vitiated by _mala fides_ and extraneous consideration. It is stated that there is absolutely no reason justifying the transfers out of the State except the ill will harboured against the petitioners.
3. It is stated that the 1[st] respondent is a scheduled bank and is a Company registered under the Companies Act and is liable to be treated as 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India for the reason that it is carrying out public functions. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Marwari Balika Vidyalaya v.**_
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
4
_**Asha Srivastava**_ [2019(2) KHC 929 (SC)], it is stated that where a private body is carrying out a public function, a writ would be liable to be issued even such private body for enforcement of the public duty. It is stated that in the decision reported in _**Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab**_ [(2012) 12 SCC 331] also, it has been held that a public duty enforceable by a writ of mandamus does not have to be a statutory duty and the same can be imposed by common law, custom or even contract. It is contended that where injustice is writ large in the action of an authority exercising public law functions this Court cannot rely on technicalities to deny reliefs. It is contended that the petitioner has absolutely no other remedy as against an order of transfer and even if a suit is found to be maintainable, the same would not be an efficacious alternative remedy to justify the denial of a writ as sought for.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would contend that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in _**Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas**_ [AIR 2003 SC 4325] . It is stated that the Apex Court had clearly held that no writ is maintainable against a private Company carrying on business as a scheduled bank, since there is no public duty being discharged or positive obligation of a public nature. It was held that an order of termination of service of an employee of a scheduled bank could not be challenged by recourse
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
5
to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since there is no public duty sought to be enforced through such exercise. Relying on the decision reported in _**Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan**_ [(2005)6 KLT 657], it is contended that a writ of mandamus can be issued against a private body which is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, provided that there is a public law element and the writ is issued to enforce such public duty, but cannot be used to enforce purely private contracts entered into between the parties. It is therefore contended that even where a private body is performing a public duty, a writ will issue only for the enforcement of the performance of that public duty and for no other purpose. The Division Bench in _**Binny Ltd.'s case (supra)**_ has clearly held that the scope of mandamus is determined by the nature of the duty to be enforced, rather than the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. If the private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any right is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents also brought to my notice the decision of the Apex Court in _**Ramakrishna Mission v. Kago Kunya**_ [2019(5) SCALE 559] to contend that merely because RBI relies on a banking policy, that does not mean that a scheduled bank is discharging a public function. It had been held that even where a
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
6
private body is exercising public functions, the writ of mandamus could be issued to enforce those public functions alone and not to enforce contract of services or to consider service matters of employees of such private bodies in the absence of any statutory regulation of such conditions of service.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. I am of the opinion that the decision of the Apex Court in _**Federal Bank Ltd.'s case (supra)**_ settles the issue, since it has been specifically held, after considering the factual aspects of the matter, that a scheduled bank which is a private entity carrying out banking operations cannot be held to be discharging public functions to make it amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While it is true that writ under Article 226 can be issued against even a private body for enforcement of a public duty, it is equally true that writ would lie only for the enforcement of such specified public duty and for no other purpose.
7. In the instant case, what is being sought is a writ of certiorari to quash an order of transfer, I am of the opinion that the 1[st] respondent being a scheduled bank, the orders of transfer of its employees are matters beyond the power of this Court in view of the fact that there is no public law element involved in such transfers and postings of employees of a scheduled bank. I am of the opinion that
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
7
the writ petition with the prayers sought for is not maintainable.
8. The writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. In view of the fact that I am not interfering in the writ petitions, it is made clear that the contentions of the petitioners as to the legality of the orders of transfer have not been considered by this Court and are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE**
_vgs_
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
8
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14546/2019**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICE FOR OFFICERS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.8.2011 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TRANSFER ORDER ISSUED THROUGH EMAIL BY THE2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.05.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE CONCILIATION REPORT DULY SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**
_**WP(C).14546 & 14550/19**_
9
## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14550/2019**
**PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER AND POSTING DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER.**
**EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DT 17.5.2019 ISSUED THROUGH EMAIL.**
**EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER GUIDELINES ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.**