1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
"Under the facts & circumstances of the above facts & factual
matrix, the petitioner being a sole earning member of the family
and undergoing numerous medical treatment most respectfully
prays that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit the
writ application & issue the O.Ps to show cause as to why they shall
not be liable for the negligence on the part of OP No.l & 2 to fix up
the responsibility on the Bank to recover the embezzled amount
from OP No.l and recover the loan A/c of petitioner in the interest
of justice equity & fair play; matter under the pretext of written
receipt from bank /competent authority a writ of mandamus or any
other appropriate writ (s) directing the OPs to restore the
embezzled amount of petitioner from OP No. 1 through reasonable
order to trace the missing amount & taken in to the loan amount;
And pass further such suitable order / orders as may be deemed
just & proper in the fact & circumstances of this case;
4. A bare perusal of the contents of the Writ Petition, it appears
that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the
judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2020
(Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors -vrs.- Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Odisha and Ors.). The ordering portion of the said
judgment is as follows:
"xxx xxx xxx
24. From the aforementioned discussion, it has been established that, for an
organization to be deemed as performing a public function, such function
must be inherently associated with those performed by the State in its
sovereign capacity.
25. Taking a cue from the preceding discussion, there is no evidence on
record to suggest that the Respondent/Bank undertakes functions
comparable to those exclusively carried out by State authorities. The
Respondent/Bank is a non-statutory entity that does not perform any
public function, as banking services are provided by both private and State
entities. Moreover, the Respondent/Bank does not hold any monopoly
status conferred or mandated by law. Although the State may promote
such entities as part of its social policy or economic development
initiatives, this encouragement does not equate to the performance of a
"public function".
26. In the present case, the lack of State control over the management of
the Respondent/Bank significantly influences the conclusion that the
Respondent/Bank does not fall within the definition of a public authority.
The deputation of employees from another bank and their subsequent
absorption by the Respondent/Bank does not imply that it has undertaken
a public function. The Respondent/Bank operates under democratic
control, and the ultimate authority regarding the service conditions of its
employees lies with the management of the Respondent/Bank.
27. Therefore, in this petition, the Respondent/Bank does not qualify as a
"State" or "instrumentality of the State" within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution and is thus not subject to the jurisdiction of Article
V. CONCLUSION:
given the absence of any pleadings by the Petitioners to substantiate that
the Opposite Party/bank qualify as a State instrumentality, it is deemed
unnecessary to make any further observations on this matter.
29. The Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable."
5. Accordingly, in light of the comprehensive exposition of the law
which has been highlighted in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das
(supra) and given the absence of any pleadings by the Petitioner
to substantiate that the Opposite Party/bank qualify as a State
instrumentality, it is deemed unnecessary to make any further
observations on this matter. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed as not maintainable.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Murmu
