Writ petition dismissed: Bank not public authority. Private entity not under Article 12.

The court held that the writ petition against Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank was not maintainable as the bank is a private entity and not a public authority. It was determined that the bank does not qualify as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution as it is not financially, functionally, or administratively controlled by the government. Additionally, the court found that the bank does not perform any public duty essential to people's lives. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on the bank's private nature and lack of public functions.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 lies against a co-operative urban bank which is not shown to be a State or instrumentality of State under Article 12, and whether such a bank performs a public duty amenable to mandamus.

Analysis: The governing test is whether the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by the Government, with pervasive control, so as to fall within Article 12. Mere registration under a co-operative law, or regulation by statutory provisions, does not by itself make the entity a State or a public authority. A writ of mandamus is available only to enforce a public duty or statutory obligation, not private contractual rights. The bank in question was treated as a privately constituted co-operative bank carrying on banking business, subject only to regulatory control, and not as a body discharging governmental functions or public duties.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the bank and mandamus could not be issued; the conclusion is against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory control over a privately constituted co-operative bank does not convert it into a State or instrumentality of State, and a writ under Article 226 lies only to enforce a demonstrable public duty or statutory obligation.

---