ORDER N. K. Mehrotra, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order dated 27.12.2003 as contained in Annexure-1. 2. The petitioner is cashier-clerk in the Lucknow Branch of the Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. According to the petitioner, the opposite party No. 1 is a scheduled bank registered as Co-operative Society under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 and deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1924 and it comes within the meaning of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite parties had raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has referred a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat (FB), AIR 1993 Bom 93, in which it has been held that Multi-State Co-operative Bank registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and under the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 4. Further in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas, 2003 AIR SCW 4996, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court that a writ petition under Article 226 may be maintainable against (i) the State Government ; (ii) Authority ; (iii) a statutory body ; iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State ; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State ; (vi) a private body which runs substantially on State funding ; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature ; (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function but a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking business as a scheduled Bank cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies to work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligations upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies to work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligations upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Honble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.