Kerala High Court
Ajithkumar vs The Indusind Bank Limited on 17 July, 2025
W.A.No.416 of 2025 1 2025:KER:52629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
THURSDAY, THE 17
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 26TH ASHADHA,
1947
WA NO. 416 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.01.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.30007 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JITHKUMAR
A
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O STANLY, HAPPY BHAVAN, MULAYRA P. O., PEVADU
VELLANADU ROAD, KATTAKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695543
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.JOMY K. JOSE
SHRI.MUHAMMED ANSHIF T.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 - 5:
1 HE INDUSIND BANK LIMITED T GOWRI NARAYAN, 40/8200 OPPOSITE JAYALAKSHMI SILKS, M G ROAD, KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER., PIN - 682035 2 HE INDUSIND BANK T SHIVA SHAKTI TOWERS, SASTHAMANGALAM, W.A.No.416 of 2025 2 2025:KER:52629 HIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, T PIN - 695010 3 HE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER T REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695121 4 HE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER T REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695541 5 HE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER T REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101 BY ADV SHRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE HIS T WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2025, THE COURT ON 17.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.416 of 2025 3 2025:KER:52629 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 20.01.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.30007 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant/petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to issue the NOC and Form No.35 of the closed loanaccounts.ThelearnedSingleJudgewithoutconsideringthelegality involved in the writ petition, dismissed the same vide the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2025, which reads thus: " 5. Onanevaluationofthematerialsonrecord,itisevidentthat there are disputed questionsoffactsbetweenthepetitionerand therespondents1and2.Thepetitioner'scontentionisthatthere arenoduespayabletotherespondents1and2.Onthecontrary, the respondents 1 and 2 stated that there are dues payableby the petitioner. Indisputably, the respondents 1 and 2 private banks and are not instrumentalities of the State. There is no public duty cast upon them to issue the NOC. The transaction betweenthepetitionerandtherespondents1and2iscontractual in nature, which falls within the realm of private law remedy. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. W.A.No.416 of 2025 4 2025:KER:52629 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to therightofthepetitionertoworkouthisremediesinaccordance with the law." 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 has held that, private companies, including private banks, would normally not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. However, there are certain circumstances where a writ may be issued to private bodies or persons if there arestatutesthatneedtobe complied with byallconcerned,includingprivatecompanies.Itisfurther held that merely because the Reserve Bank of India has laid down the bankingpolicyintheinterestofthebankingsystemandintheinterestof monetary stability or sound economic growth having due regard to the interests of the depositors, that does not mean that the private companies carrying on the business or commercial activity of banking, discharge any public function or public duty. 6. Division Bench of this Court in Mathew Ignitious V. The CatholicSyrianBank(2019(5)KHC835),hascategoricallyheldthata scheduled bank registered as a company under the Companies Act do W.A.No.416 of 2025 5 2025:KER:52629 notfallwithinthepurviewof'State'orotherauthoritiesunderArticle12of the Constitution of India. Therefore, such abankisnotamenabletothe jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7.Admittedlyinthepresentcase,respondents1and2-Bankisa private commercial Bank, therefore, the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has not committed any errorindismissingthewritpetition andholdingthatprivatebanksarenotinstrumentalitiesofthe'State'and there is no public duty cast upon them to issue the NOC and that the transactionbetweentheappellantandrespondents1and2iscontractual in nature, which falls within the realm of private law remedy. Accordingly, we refrain from entertaining the writ appeal, and the same is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/11.7