Ran Vijay Chand vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju and Umeshwar Pandey, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.N. Misra has appeared for the respondents.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.8.2003 Annexure 6 to the writ petition by which the petitioner has been removed from the membership of the Committee of Management of the District Co-operative Bank Limited, Gorakhpur u/s 38 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made several submissions e.g. that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing, that it was not within the ambit of Section 38 of the Act, etc.

However, we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed without going into the merits of the case because the petitioner has been convicted in a criminal case u/s 302, IPC and hence this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Even if the petitioner has filed an appeal in this Court and has been granted, bail this does not mean that the conviction has been washed out. Unless and until his appeal is allowed he will remain a convicted murderer. A bank runs on public confidence. What confidence will the public have in Bank on whose Committee of Management there is a convicted murderer?

In Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (vide Paragraph 11), the Supreme Court observed :

"The power under Article 226 is discretionary. It will be exercised only in furtherance of justice and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-a-vis the private interest while exercising the power under Article 226 ."

In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raja Mahendra Pal and Others, (vide Paragraph 6), and in Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others Vs. M.R. Apparao and Another, (vide Paragrpah 17), the Supreme Court observed that the power vested in the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary.

Thus, the High Court is not bound to issue a writ even if there is violation of law, because the power under Article 226 is discretionary. In a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show violation of law, he must also show that equity is in his favour. If he only shows violation of law but he does not show that equity is in his favour a writ will not be issued. Hence both law and equity must be in the petitioner''s favour before a writ is issued.

In the present case, equity is certainly not in the petitioner''s favour as he is a convicted murderer, and if will not in the interest of the bank or the public to have him on the Bank''s Bound until and unless his appeal is allowed.

For the reasons given above we are not inclined to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in this case.