The Argument Was Raised That Not Only Bank Was Incorporated Under The Companies Act But Is Governed By Regulatory Provisions Of Banking. The Apex Court Did Not Accept The Argument On Maintainability Of The Writ Petition Merely For The Reason That The Authority Or The Person Was Incorporated Under The Companies Act And Is Governed By The Regulatory Provisions. It Was Held That A Writ Petition Under Article 226 Of The Constitution Of India Would Be Maintainable Against Following; (I) The State (Government); (Ii) An 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 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 With Compulsion To Perform Statutory Function. The Writ Petition Therein Was Not Held Maintainable Merely For The Reason That Bank Was Incorporated Under The Companies Act And Otherwise Governed By The Regulatory Provisions Which May Be Industries (Development And Regulation) Act, 1951. The Apex Court Did Not Find State Dominance Or Control Over The Affairs Of The Company. The Relevant Paras Of The Said Judgment Are Quoted Hereunder For Ready Reference :- "27. Such Private Companies Would Normally Not Be Amenable To The Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Of The Constitution. But In Certain Circumstances A Writ May Issue To Such Private Bodies Or Persons As There May Be Statutes Which Need To Be Complied With By All Concerned Including The Private Companies. For Example, There Are Certain Legislations Like The Industrial Disputes Act, The Minimum Wages Act, The Factories Act Or For Maintaining Proper Environment, Say The Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981 Or The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1974 Etc. Or Statutes Of The Like Nature Which Fasten Certain Duties And Responsibilities Statutorily Upon Such Private Bodies Which They Are Bound To Comply With. If They Violate Such A Statutory Provision A Writ Would Certainly Be Issued For Compliance With Those Provisions. For Instance, If A Private Employer Dispenses With The Service Of Its Employee In Violation Of The Provisions Contained Under The Industrial Disputes Act, In Innumerable Cases The High Court Interfered And Has Issued The Writ To The Private Bodies And The Companies In That Regard. But The Difficulty In Issuing A Writ May Arise Where There May Not Be Any Non-Compliance With Or Violation Of Any Statutory Provision By The Private Body. In That Event A Writ May Not Be Issued At All. Other Remedies, As May Be Available, May Have To Be Resorted To. 28. The Six Factors Which Have Been Enumerated In The Case Of Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia V. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] And Approved In The Later Decisions In The Case Of Ramana [Ramana Dayaram Shetty V. International Airport Authority Of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] And The Seven-Judge Bench In The Case Of Pradeep Kumar Biswas [(2002) 5 SCC 111 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 633] May Be.