Public law element absent in private bank board nomination dispute; writ jurisdiction not available for internal directorship rejection.

A challenge to the rejection of nominations for directorship in a private banking company was held to fall within the private corporate sphere, not a public law field. The Court noted that the Companies Act, 2013, the relevant Rules, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and SEBI regulations governed nomination and banking governance, but did not give RBI or SEBI power to compel acceptance of the nominations or intervene in the internal board-composition decision. Complaints against regulatory nominees were treated as detached from the core dispute. As no public duty or public function was involved in the impugned action, writ relief under Article 226 was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the nomination for directorship by a private banking company, and the related complaints to regulatory authorities, disclosed a public law element so as to make the writ petitions maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The dispute centered on the refusal to place the proposed candidates' names before the general body for election as directors. The relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the associated Rules prescribe the procedure for notice of candidature and the role of the Nomination and Remuneration Committee, while the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and SEBI regulations regulate banking governance and director qualifications. However, the provisions relied on did not confer on RBI or SEBI any power to interfere with the rejection of a nomination for directorship in the manner sought. The Bank's commercial banking functions involving deposits and loans were distinct from the internal corporate decision concerning constitution of its board. The complaints raised against RBI and SEBI nominees were found to be detached from the core challenge to the rejection of nomination. Applying the settled distinction between public law and private law remedies, the Court held that a writ of mandamus lies only where a public duty or public function is involved, and that the impugned action in relation to board composition of the private bank fell within the private sphere.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable under Article 226, and the challenge to the rejection of nomination could not be pursued in writ jurisdiction.

---