Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. set aside a Single Bench order that had imposed ₹50,000 as costs on a private commercial bank for not returning borrowers’ original title deeds even nine years after closure of their joint loan account and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Bench found that, as a private commercial bank, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 on the facts pleaded. The dispute arose from the borrowers’ request for release of their title documents and a declaration that the bank had no authority to retain them after the loan account was closed. The Court left the borrowers at liberty to pursue other remedies in accordance with law.

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the respondents seeking return of original title deeds allegedly retained by a private scheduled bank even after closure of a loan account.

Also Read: Income Tax Act | Section 44C Cap Applies To Foreign Companies’ Overseas Head Office Expenses For Indian Business : Supreme Court

The petitioners contended that despite repayment of the loan, the bank failed to return the documents, prompting them to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants, being the Authorised Officer and Branch Manager of the private bank, opposed the writ petition on the ground that it was not maintainable, as the bank was a private entity not discharging any public function.

The Single Judge issued declarations regarding lack of authority to retain the documents, declined directions for release due to non-availability, rejected compensation, and imposed costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the bank preferred an intra-court writ appeal challenging primarily the maintainability of the writ petition and the imposition of costs.

The Division Bench considered the preliminary issue of maintainability of a writ petition against a private scheduled bank. The Court observed that the learned Single Judge proceeded to grant declaratory reliefs and impose costs “without considering the issue of maintainability”. The Bench noted that the appellants had specifically contended that the bank was a private entity and that the relief sought did not relate to the discharge of any public function.

Relying on binding precedent, the Court recorded that “private companies, including private banks, would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. It further stated that regulatory control exercised by the Reserve Bank of India does not, by itself, render private banks subject to writ jurisdiction, observing that “merely because the Reserve Bank of India has laid down the banking policy… that does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking discharge any public function or public duty”.

The Bench also referred to earlier decisions holding that scheduled banks registered under the Companies Act do not fall within the ambit of “State” under Article 12. The Court observed that “the relationship between the bank and its borrowers is essentially contractual” and that disputes arising from such relationship lack the necessary public law element to attract Article 226.

Addressing the respondents’ contention that prolonged retention of title deeds violated fundamental rights, the Court recorded that such grievances, even if assumed to be true, do not confer writ jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory public duty. The Court stated that “the learned Single Judge has committed an error in entertaining the writ petition and issuing certain directions”.

On this basis, the Bench concluded that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained and that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

Also Read: Arrest Illegal For Failure To Inform Grounds To Arrestee Promptly: Kerala High Court

The Court ordered that “the judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. “The writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable” under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding that the appellant bank, being a private commercial bank, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction.

“The respondents 1 to 3 herein would be at liberty to work out the remedies in accordance with law, if so advised”. The writ appeal was accordingly allowed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Praveen K. Joy, Shri. P. Paulochan Antony, Shri. Sreejith K., Shri. G. Viswanathan, Shri. N. Abhilash, Shri. E. S. Saneej, Shri. Albin Varghese, Smt. Fathima Shalu S., Smt. Abisha E. R., Smt. Megha G., Smt. Lakshmi K. S., Shri. Abhijith V. Prasad, Shri. Althaf Ameer, Smt. Archana Vinod, Shri. M. P. Unnikrishnan

For the Respondents: Shri. Sunil Shanker, Smt. Vidya Gangadharan, Shri. Thomas Glaison

Case Title: The Authorised Officer & Anr. v. Sheela Francis Parakkal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:63425
Case Number: WA No. 1498 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.