Art. 226 | Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against NBFC; Private Company's Banking Business Not 'Public Function' : Supreme Court
Live LawThe Supreme Court recently stated that an entity being subject to regulatory guidelines under a statute does not automatically make it subject to Writ Jurisdiction. Instead, Writ Jurisdiction applies only when it can be demonstrated that the entity is performing a public duty or function concerning its responsibilities. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against the State Government; Authority; a statutory body; an instrumentality or agency of the State; a company which is financed and owned by the State; a private body run substantially on State funding; a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, the court observed. Applying the 'function test,' the Court observed that since the Respondent had a duty only towards its account holders and not the public, it could not be considered a public body subject to writ jurisdiction.
History of this topic
Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked For Commercial Transactions Between Private Person & Public Body Involving Element Of Public Law: Calcutta HC
Live LawDiscover Related