Judgment :- 1. Heard, Mr. L.J. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Mr. A.P. Balasubramaniam, the learned Central Government Standing counsel for the first respondent; and Mr. Sanjay for S. Ramasubramaniam & Associates, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3-Bank. 2. The erstwhile employees of Bank of Madura, which was later on merged with ICICI Bank, have come forward with this petition for a Mandamus, to direct the second respondent-Bank to pay pension as per Bank of Madura Employees ‘ Pension Regulations, 1995. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were originally employed in the Bank of Madura and served in various Branches till their voluntary retirement. The Bank of Madura merged with the ICICI Bank, under the scheme of amalgamation under Section 44-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After the amalgamation, the entire responsibilities were taken over by respondents 2 and 3-ICICI Bank. According to the petitioners, at the time of their-retirement, the Management of Bank of Madura, had assured them that the pension will be given to them as and when the Pension Scheme was introduced by the Bank. Subsequently, a Pension Scheme called as, “Bank of Madura Employees ‘ Pension Regulations, 1995 ” (hereinafter, referred to as “ Pension Regulations ” ), came into effect from 1.2.1996 as, per the Circular in CO;PER 074; 95-96. According to petitioners the said Pension Scheme, which was arrived at with the consent of the employees and officers ‘Union, favours only the employees continuing in service. The first petitioner ‘s date of retirement was on 31.3.1994 and the date of superannuation was on 30.7.1998 and he was receiving pension from 1.9.1998 onwards. 4. According to them that as per the Pension Scheme, even for the employees, who retired on Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short “V.R.S.” ), pension is to commence only from the date of superannuation. Before their retirement, they were persuaded to opt for V.R.S. and the Management of the Bank of Madura assured them that once Pension Scheme is introduced in the Bank, pension will be given for persons, who have retired on V.R.S. from the date of their retirement. Subsequently, they came to know that few employees, who opted and retired on V.R.S. during the year 2000, the pension was given tot them from the date of their retirement and not from the date of superannuation. Subsequently, they came to know that few employees, who opted and retired on V.R.S. during the year 2000, the pension was given tot them from the date of their retirement and not from the date of superannuation. Therefore, the petitioners appealed to the second respondent-Bank to consider their case and grant pension to them from the date of their retirement, they also sent a tetter to the second respondent-Bank on 11.11.2003, requesting to consider their request to pay the pension from 1.4.1994 and also claimed the benefit of medical insurance, referring to Rule 35(IV) of Pension Regulations, as per which, the pension amount shall be calculated based on average emoluments and it has to be recalculated as and when any revision in pay scales is implemented by the second respondent-Bank. Thus, according to the petitioners, the second respondent-Bank have the legal obligation to pay higher pension as and when, the scales are revised from time-to-time. The second respondent-Bank, by its reply dated 20.1.2004, refused to consider the request of the petitioners to recalculate the eligible pension under Rule 29(V) and (VI) of Pension Regulations by giving 5 years weightage in service, restricting to 33 years and also to recalculate eligible pension by taking into account of the subsequent salary revisions that has taken place in the second respondent-Bank, viz., on 1.4.1998 and 1.7.2001 and subsequently, in terms of Rule 35(IV) of Pension Regulations. 5. The petitioners further averred that after the amalgamation, as per Clauses 9 and 10 of the order of amalgamation, the employees of the transferee bank without any break or interference in service absolve all the schemes formulated by the transferee bank. But, the second respondent-Bank sent a circular, whereby, it introduced V.R.S., called as “Early Retirement Option” (E.R.O.). According to petitioners, the Bank of Madura was a Scheduled Commercial Bank and it had-promulgated Pension Scheme for its employees, which was called as Bank of Madura Employees ‘Pension Regulations, 1995” . The number of representations submitted by the petitioners for grant of pension from the date of retirement were turned down by the second respondent-Bank by giving untenable reasons, which is quite contrary to the principles of natural justice and also against the practices-followed in any other banks, including the Private Sector Banks, therefore, it is discriminatory among employees of the same bank. According to petitioners, Rule 3 of the Pension Regulations is mandatory in nature and the same is binding upon both the employee as well as the employer. Added further petitioners, all other regulations contained therein cannot be viewed in isolation, but, the same has to be read in conjunction to Rule 3 or Rule 3 to be viewed in the light of Rule 19-B of Pension Regulations; Rule 22E; Rule 35(1) to (iv); and 53 part of 1996. Rule 3(8) Pension Regulations are inconsistent with Rule 3 of Pension Regulations, which is ab initio and suffer from infirmities. 6. Further, their case is that they are entitled to pension from 4he date of their retirement- under V.R.S. or on the date of implementation of the Pension Scheme. The Bank of Madura Employees ‘Pension Regulations, 1995, alone contained some controversial Riries deviating from the common draft Pension Scheme applicable to other banks, such as, Nationalised Banks and Private Sector Banks, as approved by I AIBOC & AIBEA. All Banks ‘Pension Regulations have provisions for pension to the employees, who retire under V.R.S. only from the date of retirement itself. The deviation by Bank of Madura is in discrimination among Banks. While framing its own Pension Regulations, it has similar Rules like other banks, in addition to that it has Rules to give pension to the employees who retire under V.R.S. only from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. As per the Pension Regulations, the petitioners have opted for Pension Scheme, as otherwise they have been misguided by the Management of the second respondent-Bank that they would loose the pension once for all. The second respondent-Bank has recently come out with “Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000” and also “Early Retirement Option, 2003” , as per which, the employees who opt to retire under V.R.S. will be given pension from the date of retirement along with other Compensation Packages, which shows discrimination not among Banks, but, also among the employees of the same Bank. 7. The second respondent-Bank has recently come out with “Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000” and also “Early Retirement Option, 2003” , as per which, the employees who opt to retire under V.R.S. will be given pension from the date of retirement along with other Compensation Packages, which shows discrimination not among Banks, but, also among the employees of the same Bank. 7. The petitioners further claim that as per the various decisions of the Supreme Court, the second respondent-Bank comes under the purview of the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it clearly specifies that even though a body of persons may not constitute “State” within the definition, a Writ under Article 226 may lie against it under certain consideration, where a special body had public duty to perform or where its acts are supported by estate or public officials. Therefore, the petitioners prayed for a direction to respondents 2 and 3-Bank, (i) to pay pension from the date of retirement under V.R.S. Scheme and to pay the arrears retrospectively; (ii) to honour the contractual obligations under Rule 29(5) and (6) of Pension Regulations by giving 5 years of weightage of service, without discrimination; and also (iii) to implement Rule 35 (IV) of Pension Regulations and recalculate eligible pension based on subsequent wage revisions from 1.4.1998 and 1.7.2001. 8. The respondents 2 and 3-Bank have filed their common counter affidavit and they have taken a stand that the writ petition is not maintainable as against respondents 2 and 3-Bank, as it is a Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the , 1956, which is neither created nor governed by any Special Statute. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners by invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court as against respondents 2 and 3-Bank, is totally misconceived. The Management of respondents 2 and 3-Bank is vested with the Board of Directors and regulated by its own Memorandum and Articles of Association, not by any special statutes. Unlike other Statutory Corporations viz., State Bank of India, which is constituted and governed by the, 1955 and other Nationalised Banks, which is constituted and governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acts 1970 and 1980, respondents 2 and 3-Bank is not subject to any Regulation or control of President of India or the Central Government or any Special Statute. Therefore, respondents 2 and 3-Bank being a Private Sector Bank, is not a ‘State ‘or ‘Instrumentality of State ‘within the meaning of the Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated by respondents 2 and 3-Bank, the Full Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 5.5.2004, have categorically held that in the matter of employees of various Companies, the disputes relating to matters are not governed by the, but, it has to be resolved only by the Court of Common Law. The petitioners have retired from the service of respondents 2 and 3-Bank during the year 1994-1995 on their opting for V.R.S. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioners after a lapse of more than eight years is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. 10. It is further averred by the respondents 2 and 3-Bank that the Pension Regulations were framed in the Banking Industry vis-à-vis, in the Bank of Madura Limited (merged with the ICICI Bank Limited w.e.f. 10.3.2001). Prior to introduction of Pension in Banking Industry, the retiral benefits were of two types - (i) Contributory Provident Fund ; and (ii) Gratuity. There has been consistent demand for introduction of Pension as 3rd retiral benefit. After lots of deliberation, the Central Government agreed for introduction of pensionary benefit in respect of the Nationalised Banks, but, only as a 2nd retiral benefit, in lieu of, Contributory matching contribution by the Employer in Provident Fund. 11. In the year 1995, the Banking Industry Level Pension Scheme was introduced for the benefit of the employees of the banks with pension as a 2nd retiral benefit, in lieu of, Contributory Provident Fund. Consequently, the existing system of retiral benefits in the Industry got changed from Contributory Provident Fund + Gratuity to Provident Fund + Pension and Gratuity. This was made effective for all employees joining in Banking Industry on or after 1.11.1993. However, consequent upon the introduction of the Pension Scheme, in lieu of, Contributory Provident Fund, an one time option was given to all the existing employees as of 31.10.1993, to exercise their option-either for pensionary benefit or to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund. This was made effective for all employees joining in Banking Industry on or after 1.11.1993. However, consequent upon the introduction of the Pension Scheme, in lieu of, Contributory Provident Fund, an one time option was given to all the existing employees as of 31.10.1993, to exercise their option-either for pensionary benefit or to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund. In pursuant to that, a large number of existing employees joined before 1.11.1993 exercised their option in favour of Banking Industry Level Pension Scheme which contemplates payment of pension to the employees retiring under V.R.S. only from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. 12. When that being the position, the erst while Bank of Madura, which was not a member of tree Indian Banks Association (for short, “IBA” ), was adopting the method in consonance with its Officers Association, to which, the present writ petitioners were members, viz., the Industry Level Scheme in respect of service conditions and also in the matter of payment of retiral benefits to its employees diligently. As such, in tune with the Industry Level Scheme, the erstwhile Bank of Madura introduced a Pension Scheme, called as “Bank of Madura Employees ‘Pension Regulations, 1995” in line with the Banking Industry Level as a 2nd retiral benefit, in lieu of, Contributory Provident Fund and in consonance with the Officers ‘Association and Employees ‘Union. As per Regulation 35 of Pension Regulations, the employees, who opt for retirement under V.R.S. shall be eligible for pension only from the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e., the date on which, he would have retired had he continued in employment, if he is otherwise eligible, under the said Regulations. Therefore, the intention behind the Pension Regulations is to enable an employee retiring under V.R.S. to draw pension from the date of his retirement, if he has retired in the normal course. 13. Therefore, the intention behind the Pension Regulations is to enable an employee retiring under V.R.S. to draw pension from the date of his retirement, if he has retired in the normal course. 13. It is further urged by respondents 2 and 3-Bank that the petitioners have opted for V.R.S. during the year 1994 under the Bank of Madura Employees ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme, vide Circular No. GO.STF:39:94-95 and they have also received the benefits as per the above said V.R.S. Since, Pension Scheme was not introduced in the Industry Level during the year 1994, when the instant V.R.S. was introduced, a provision was made to the effect in the V.R.S. that if the Pension Scheme is introduced in the Bank and if an employee opts to retire under V.R.S., he shall become eligible for pension in terms of the Pension Scheme and he shall be extended the benefits of Pension Scheme as and when implemented. The Pension Regulation introduced in the year 1995 clearly provides that the employee retiring under V.R.S. shall be eligible for pension only from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. In the case in hand, the pension shall be payable to the petitioners only from the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners are governed under the said specific Pension Scheme. The petitioners having accepted the pension during these years, their claim for pension from the date of V.R.S. is not sustainable. Equally, there was also no assurance given to the petitioners that once Pension Scheme is introduced in the Bank, pension will be given for the employees, who have retired on V.R.S. from the date of their retirement. 14. Added further in the counter affidavit, respondents 2 and 3-Bank introduced a Special Incentive Scheme during the year 2000, to those employees, who opt for voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of Pension Regulations. As per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, an employee of the Bank, who is covered under this Regulation and has completed 20 years of service is entitled for voluntary retirement from the service of the bank by giving 3 months notice to the Appointing Authority, in such case, he will be entitled for full pension, if the employee has completed 33 years of service. In case, if the employee does not complete 33 years of service, the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not exceed thirty three years and it does not go beyond the date of superannuation. Those employees, who have retired voluntarily under Regulation No. 29 alone can avail the benefit of additional qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension and they are also entitled for immediate pension. None of the petitioners are neither entitled for immediate pension nor claim additional qualifying service, as they have not opted for voluntary retirement under Regulation No. 29, but, they have retired only under the V.R.S., which was introduced in the year 1994. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners has to be rejected and they pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 15. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondents 2 and 3-Bank comes under the purview of the meaning of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and it clearly specifies that, even though a body of persons may not constitute “State” within the definition, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will lie against respondents 2 and 3-Bank, where a special body had public duty to perform or where its acts are supported by state or public officials and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable in law. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that as per the V.R.S., there was an assurance given to them that once Pension Scheme is introduced in the Bank, pension will be given for persons, who have opted to retire on V.R.S. from the date of their retirement and therefore, there is a public duty and obligation on the part of respondents 2 and 3-Bank to consider the claim of the petitioners. 17. 17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3-Bank would contend that respondents 2 and 3-Bank is a Private Sector Bank and therefore, there is ho public duty and it does not come either under the definition of ‘State ‘or ‘Instrumentality of State ‘within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition would not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against a Private Scheduled Commercial Bank. 18. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3-Bank, relying upon the decision in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4325 : (2003) 10 SCC 733 : 2004-I-LLJ-161 , would submit that the question as to, whether the appellant-bank is a private body or fails within the definition of the ‘State ‘or local or mother authorities under the control of the “Government within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, came up for consideration and it was held that writ petition would not lie against a Private Scheduled Commercial Bank and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as not maintainable. 19. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3-Bank further added that as per the Pension Scheme, those employees, who have opted and retired voluntarily under Regulation No. 29 alone can avail the benefit of additional service for the purpose of computation of pension and they are only entitled for immediate pension. The petitioners have not voluntarily retired from the service under Regulation No. 29, on the other hand, they have retired only under V.R.S. introduced in the year 1994. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners as per Regulation No. 29, which was introduced as a Special Incentive Scheme, cannot be granted. The learned counsel would further urge that once the petitioners have opted for V.R.S. during the year 1994 and they have also received the benefits as per the above said V.R.S. and it is also made clear to them that the Pension Scheme will have the effect from the date of attaining the age of superannuation and not from the date of their voluntary retirement, they are not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 20. 20. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents annexed to the typed-set of-papers and also the relevant provisions of law. 21. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were originally the employees of Bank of Madura and later on, the said Bank merged with the ICICI Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation under Section 44-A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The petitioners have opted for voluntary retirement during the year 1994 under the Bank of Madura Employees ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme, vide Circular No. CO.STF; 39;94-95, dated 21.7.1994. It is made clear to them that besides normal benefits, certain other benefits were also offered to the employees who opted under the above said V.R.S. At that point of time, the Pension Scheme was not introduced in the second respondent-Bank, vis-à-vis, in the Industry Level and only the V.R.S. was available. Later on, IBA evolved a set of instructions relating to introduction of pension option in the Banking Industry. After collective bargaining between the IBA and Union, they have reached Banking Industry bevel Pension Scheme in the year 1995. Consequent upon the introduction of the Pension Scheme, one time option was given to the employees to exercise their option either for pensionary benefits or to continue with the Contributory Provident Fund. It is seen that the Pension-Regulations introduced in the year 1995 clearly provides that the employee retiring under V.R.S. shall be eligible for pension only at the age of attaining-the superannuation. In this case, pension will become payable to the petitioners only on their attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioners are governed under the said specific Pension Scheme and having accepted the payment of pension during these years, the petitioners ‘claim for pension from the date of their voluntary retirement is not considered by the second respondent-Bank. These are all the matters now under consideration before this Court. 22. A primary objection has been raised as to the question of maintainability of the writ petition. So, primarily, this Court has to decide as to, Whether the petitioners can maintain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as against the second respondent-Bank, which is a Private Scheduled Commercial Bank. 23. To this question it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Limited, rep. 23. To this question it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Limited, rep. by its Senior Vice President-HR v. Lakshminarayanan (2009) 5 MLJ 1525 (NOC) : 2009 (1) CTC 22 , wherein, in respect of the very same Bank, a similarly placed employee has earlier approached this Court, for pension, in W.P. No. 7744 of 2000 and has initially succeeded in his efforts before the Writ Court, as against which, the respondent-Bank went on appeal in W.A. No. 2245 of 2002, wherein, the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court, after analysing the question, by its judgment dated 4.1.2008, have held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. In the decision of the Hon‘ble Division Bench of this Court cited supra, viz., ICICI Bank Limited, rep. by its Senior Vice President-HR v. Lakshminarayanan (supra), the relevant paragraphs in respect of the question of maintainability of the writ petition are as follows: “16. Similar question relating to maintainable of a ‘Writ ‘under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was considered by the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas (supra). In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintained against a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature. Similar argument advanced on behalf of an employee that the Federal Bank performs public duty, in the light of the control of the Reserve Bank of India over the Banking industries, was accepted by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court, on appeal preferred by the Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas (supra), reversed such finding with the following observation: “18. However, the Supreme Court, on appeal preferred by the Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas (supra), reversed such finding with the following observation: “18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iiii) 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 run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. … … … 27. Such Private companies would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. But in certain circumstances a writ may be issued to such private bodies or persons as there may be statutes which need to be complied with by all concerned including private companies. For example, Wages Act, theor for maintaining proper environment, say the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, etc. or statutes of like nature which fasten certain duties and responsibilities statutorily upon such private bodies which they are bound to comply with. If they violate such a statutory provision a writ would certainly be issued for compliance with those provisions. For instance, if a private employer dispenses with the service of its employee in violation of the provisions contained under the, in innumerable cases the High Court has interfered and issued a writ to private bodies and companies in that regard. But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance with or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event, even a writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to. … 32. Merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of depositors, etc. Other remedies, as may be available, may have to be resorted to. … 32. Merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of depositors, etc. as provided under Section 5 (c)(a) of the Banking Regulations Act does not mean that private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. These are all regulatory measures applicable to those carrying on commercial activity in banking and these companies are to act according to these provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself. As to the provision regarding acquisition of a banking company by the Government, it may be pointed out that any private property can be acquired by the Government in public interest. It is now a judicially accepted norm that private interest has to give way to the public interest. If a private property is acquired in public interest it does not mean that the party whose property is acquired is performing or discharging any function or duty of public character though it would be so far the acquiring authority. 33. For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We don ‘t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely regulatory provisions to ensure that commercial activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, neither confer any status upon the company nor put any obligations upon it which may be enforced through issuance of a writ under Article 226 . Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employees by the appellant Bank. The respondent ‘s service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken against its employees by the appellant Bank. The respondent ‘s service with the Bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article 226. The respondent is not trying to enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.” 17. In the present case also, as the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd., is a private company, carrying on private banking business and not carrying on any statutory or public duty, no “Writ Petition” under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against the appellant-Bank of Madura Limited. Merely because the Bank has made provisions to grant “pension” on VRS, under the relevant Pension Scheme, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the Bank is performing a public duty or public function. Hence, the first question is answered in the negative against the respondent-writ petitioner and in favour of the appellant-Bank of Madura Ltd. (now ICICI Bank Limited).” 25. The Supreme Court by its decision in BinnyLimited v. Sadasivan, 2005-III- LLJ-738 (SC), following its earlier decision in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others (supra), held that writ petition against the termination of service of an employee of a private company is not maintainable as no public law element is involved. 26. A learned single Judge of this Court, following the above said decisions of the Supreme Court, dismissed the writ petition W.P. No. 8004 of 2004, by order dated 24.6.2004, in the case of B. Gurunathan v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank filed challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the very same bank viz., ICICI bank, as not maintainable. 27. In view of the authoritative rulings of the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Others (supra); BinnyLimited v. Sadasivan (supra) and also an unreported decision of this Court in B. Gurunathan v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank (supra) , wherein it was categorically held that a private company carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or a company carrying on any statutory or public duty, no writ would lie against the Private Scheduled Commercial Bank. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. If such conditions are not fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Mere regulatory provisions to ensure that commercial activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, neither confer any status upon the company nor put any obligations upon it which may be enforced through issuance oft a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Present is the case of the claim of the petitioners as against a private commercial bank and it could be considered only by an appropriate forum, but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held in the decisions cited supra. 28. It is not shown before this Court that second respondent-Bank, has failed to comply with or violated any of the statutory provisions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court cited supra and the decision of the Hon ‘ble Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Lakshminaraynan, (supra), I am of the considered view that the writ petition as-against, respondents 2 and 3-Bank would not lie under Article 226 of he Constitution of India. The primary question is answered in the negative against the petitioners and in favour of respondents 2 and 3-Bank. 29. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to workout their remedy, in respect of their claim, before the appropriate forum.