Writ jurisdiction over private banks depends on State domination, not mere banking regulation; regulatory control alone is insufficient.

A private scheduled bank regulated by banking statutes is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 merely because the RBI and Central Government exercise licensing, inspection, direction, and supervisory powers. Those controls were held to be regulatory only and did not amount to financial, functional, or administrative domination by the State. The bank remained a privately owned commercial enterprise with shareholder-elected management, no State shareholding, no monopoly status, and no transfer of a government function. It was therefore not an instrumentality or agency of the State under Article 12, and writ relief was unavailable absent enforcement of a statutory or public duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether a private scheduled bank, regulated by banking statutes but not owned or controlled by the State, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The decisive inquiry was whether the bank could be treated as "State" or "other authority" under Article 12, or at least as a body discharging a public duty so as to attract a writ under Article 226. The relevant test was whether there existed financial, functional, and administrative domination by the Government, or other pervasive State control. The regulatory powers under the banking law, including licensing, inspection, directions, removal of managers, appointment of additional directors, and related supervisory powers of the Reserve Bank and the Central Government, were held to be regulatory in character and intended to preserve banking discipline, depositor protection, and monetary stability. Those controls did not amount to participation in, or domination over, the bank's management. The bank was a privately owned commercial enterprise with its board elected by shareholders, no State shareholding, no monopoly status, and no transfer of a governmental department to it. On that basis, the bank was held not to be an instrumentality or agency of the State, and its disciplinary action against an employee was not shown to involve enforcement of any statutory or public duty.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable against the private scheduled bank.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory supervision over a private commercial bank, without financial, functional, and administrative domination by the State, does not make the bank "State" or a public authority for Article 226; writ jurisdiction lies against such a body only to enforce a statutory or public duty.

---