Dinanath Sharma vs The Bihar State Bar Council

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8342 of 2019
CNR No. BRHC010377782019
======================================================
1. Dinanath Sharma S/o Daroga Sharma Resident of -Sumitra Sadan, Jagat
Narayan Road, Kadam Kuan, Patna, Agreement Holder of Uma Photo, Shop
No.10, Bihar State Bar Council Campus, Patna
2. Sheo Murari Pd. Shukla S/o Ram Abhilakh Shukla, Road No. 3A, Mahesh
Nagar Post-Keshari nagar, District Patna, Agrement holder of Shukla and
Company, Shop No. 12, Bihar State Bar Council Campus, Patna
3. Dilip Kumar Sinha S/o Late Sant Kumar Prasad Resident of Village-Saidpur,
Dharhara Kothi Road, P.S.-Kadamkuan, District-Patna,Agreement Holder of
Dilip Copier, Shop No.9, Bihar State Bar Council Campus, Patna
4. Birju Sharma S/o Late Suresh Prasad Sharma Resident of C/O Shri Janardan
Prasad Sharma, Qr. No. 9B, Parsuram Path, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Patliputra,
District-Patna, Agreement Holder of Gitanjali, Shop No.3, Bihar State Bar
Council Campus, Patna
5. Jayra, Prasad Singh S/o Late Upendra Prasad Resident of -137, Gandhi Path,
Mithapur, Buddha Colony, District-Patna, Agreement Holder of Adars
Services, Shop No.7, Bihar State Bar Council Campus, Patna
6. Rajdeo Prasad S/o Late Hukum Chand Singh Resident of Village- Sultanpur,
P.O.-P.S.-Industrial Area, Hajipur, District-Vaishali,Agreement Holder of
Magadh Enterprises, Shop No.11, Bihar State Bar Council Campus, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bihar State Bar Council through its Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council,
Patna
2. The Chairman, Bihar State Bar Council, Patna
3. The Officiating Secretary, Bihar State Bar Council, Patna
4. The Chairman, Building Committee, Bihar State Bar Council, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Adv.
Mr.Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-10-2026
1 . Heard the Learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
2/7
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
2 . It is pertinent to mention the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.
Shobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Limited reported
in (2025) 11 SCC 335 at Para Nos. 7, 8 and 9
which reads as follows:-
7 . Applying the above test,
the respondent herein cannot be
called a public body. It has no duty
towards the public. Its duty is towards
its account holders, which may
include the borrowers having availed
of the loan facility. It has no pow
include ake any action, or pass any
order its orders andights of the
members of the pubht holders and
borrowers affecting the rights of the
members of the public. The binding
nature of and to its employees is
confined to its acco not akin to
Governmental functions.
8 . A body, public or private,
should not be categorised as
"amenable" or "not amenable" to writ
jurisdiction. The most important and
vital consideration should be the

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
3/7
"function" test as regards the
maintainability of a writ application. If
a public duty or public function is
involved, any body, public or private,
concerned or has 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.
9 . We may sum up thus:
9.1 . For issuing writ against a
legal entity, it would have to be an
instrumentality or agency of a State
or should have been entrusted with
such functions as are Governmental
or closely associated therewith by
being of public importance or being
fundamental to the life of the people
and hence Governmental.
9.2. A writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
may be maintainable against: (i) the
State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii)
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

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
4/7
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.
9.3. Although a non-banking
finance company like Muthoot
Finance Ltd. with which we are
concerned is duty-bound to follow and
abide by the guidelines provided by
Reserve Bank of India for smooth
conduct of its affairs in carrying on its
business, yet those are of regulatory
measures to keep a check and
provide guideline and not a
participatory dominance or control
over the affairs of the company.
9.4. A private company
carrying on banking business as a
scheduled bank cannot be termed as
a company carrying on any public
function or public duty.
9.5. Normally, mandamus is
issued to a public body or authority to
compel it to perform some public duty
cast upon it by some statute or
statutory rule. In exceptional cases a

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
5/7
writ of mandamus or a writ in the
nature of mandamus may issue to a
private body, but only where a public
duty is cast upon such private body
by a statute or statutory rule and only
to compel such body to perform its
public duty.
9.6. Merely because a statue
or a rule having the force of a statute
requires a company or some other
body to do a particular thing, it does
not possess the attribute of a
statutory body.
9.7. If a private body is
discharging a public function and the
denial of any rights is in connection
with the public duty imposed on such
body, the public law remedy can be
enforced. The duty cast on the public
body may be either statutory or
otherwise and the source of such
power is immaterial but, nevertheless,
there must be the public law element
in such action.
9.8. According to Halsbury's
Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 30, p.
682,
"a public authority is a body
not necessarily a county council,

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
6/7
municipal corporation or other local
authority which has public statutory
duties to perform, and which perform
the duties and carries out its
transactions for the benefit of the
public and not for private profit".
There cannot be any general
definition of public authority or public
action. The facts of each case decide
the point.
3 . The specific contention of the Learned
counsel for the respondents is that the Writ
petition is not maintainable against a private body.
If the petitioners have any grievance, they have to
approach the appropriate authority/ Civil Courts for
their redressal of grievances.
4 . The aforesaid judgment applies to the
present facts and circumstances of the case, and
this Court is of the considered view that disputed
questions of fact cannot be adjudicated under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the
present matter.
5 . At this juncture, the Learned counsel for
the petitioner intends to withdraw the Writ petition

Patna High Court CWJC No.8342 of 2019 dt.28-10-2026
7/7
with liberty to avail the remedy before the
appropriate forum.
6. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the
petitioner to avail of the remedy before the
appropriate forum within one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. In turn, the
appropriate forum shall decide the matter as
expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
As the matter pertains to the year 2019, the
appropriate forum shall consider the limitation
aspect.
7. With the aforesaid observations, and
without going into the merits of the case, the Writ
petition is disposed of.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
manishkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 29.10.2026
Transmission Date