Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce a private bank employment dispute where RBI approval under banking regulation is only a regulatory check.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not extend to enforcement of a purely contractual employment dispute against a private bank absent a public duty, public function, or statutory obligation. The bank was a private entity outside Article 12, and the employment relationship was governed by contract, so the dispute remained in the private law realm. Section 35B(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act operates only as a regulatory approval mechanism for specified terminations and does not regulate service conditions or decide inter se employment rights. The Reserve Bank's approval or refusal therefore did not create a public law element, and the writ petition was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable against a private bank and the Reserve Bank's approval of termination, and whether Section 35B(1)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 converted the dispute into one involving a public law element.

Analysis: Article 226 confers wide writ powers, but writs against private bodies lie only where a public duty, public function, or statutory obligation is shown. A private company is not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction for enforcement of purely contractual rights. The bank was a private entity not falling under Article 12, and the employment relationship was governed by contract. Section 35B(1)(b) operates as a regulatory approval mechanism to ensure that termination of specified bank officers does not adversely affect banking policy or the banking system; it does not regulate the service conditions of the employee or adjudicate inter se employment rights. The Reserve Bank's approval or non-approval does not determine the validity of the termination in a private law sense, and the challenge remained a contractual dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable, as no enforceable public law element was established and the dispute belonged to the realm of private contractual remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to enforce a purely contractual employment dispute against a private bank merely because the proposed termination requires prior approval of the Reserve Bank under a regulatory provision that does not govern service conditions.

---