Amitava Lala, J. - (1.)-This writ petition has been filed against the I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited, for the purpose of getting an appropriate order as against the claim of such Bank and also certiorari quashing the seizure memo dated 24th March, 2007 issued by the respondent No. 3. Before entertaining the writ petition we are of the view that we have to ascertain whether the writ can lie against the private Bank or not. We have been fortified with the judgment in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, (2003) 10 SCC 733, wherein it has been categorically held as :
"Merely because Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors etc. as provided under Section 5 (c) (a) of the Banking Regulation Act does not mean that the 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 those provisions failing which certain consequences follow as indicated in the Act itself."

(2.)THEREFORE, according to us writ cannot lie against the private Bank in the manner as proposed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner cited a judgment before this Court in Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur and others, 2007 (3) ADJ 211 (SC), to establish that inspite of the same fact and being the same party to a proceeding the Supreme Court interfered and passed necessary order.

Such submissions suffers from misconception of law. The proceeding before the Supreme Court arose out of judicial order in the criminal writ jurisdiction whereunder a point was taken by the contesting party that the dispute is purely civil in nature and did not want any direction as has been given. Ultimately, the Bank shows his willingness to compromise and an order was passed therefore, such ratio cannot be applicable in the present case. Similarly judgment passed by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J., sitting singly is arising out the judicial order of the Debt Recovery Proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Court was pleased to consider the same, under order dated 8th June, 2007, in Writ Petition No. 26837 of 2007, (Ravi Shanker Shukla v. Debts Recovery and others). A writ petition under Article 226 or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 may arise in such circumstances but not directly against an action of a private Bank which is squarely hit by the judgment (2003) 10 SCC 733 (supra).

(3.)THEREFORE, the writ petitions stands dismissed.
No order is passed as to cost.