Kerala High Court
The Authorised Officer vs Sheela Francis Parakkal on 22 August, 2025
WA No.1498 of 2025 1 2025:KER:63425
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
ND
FRIDAY, THE 22
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA,
1947
WA NO. 1498 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.11247
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):
1
HE AUTHORISED OFFICER
T
SOUTH INDIAN BANK BUILDING NO.11 THRIGGAYA AVENUE
PRIYADHARSINI ROAD ALUVA, PIN - 683101
2
HE BRANCH MANAGER
T
SOUTH INDIAN BANK ALUVA BRANCH, PIN - 683101
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.SUNIL SHANKER
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
SHRI.THOMAS GLAISON
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 IN WP(C):
1
HEELA FRANCIS PARAKKAL
S
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL, PARAKKAL HOUSE, ASSISILANE,
ALUVA, PIN - 683101
WA No.1498 of 2025 2 2025:KER:63425
2
EEPAK FRANCIS PARAKKAL
D
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL, PARAKKAL (H), ASSISSILANE,
ALUVA, PIN - 683101
3
UPAK FRANCIS PARAKKAL
R
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL 2C, NOEL ECOTAT, VALLATHOL
JUNCTION TRIKKAKKARA, PIN - 682021
4
HE GENERAL MANAGER
T
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BAKERY JUNCTION P.B NO.6507
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
5
DB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,
H
2ND FLOOR, DOOR NO.37/1912, JK CHAITHANYA BUILDINGS,
OPPOSITE SWAPNIL APARTMENT, KALOOR, KADAVANTHRA ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN, REP BY ITS MANAGER * ADDL.R4 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 IN I.A.01/2024
IN WP(C)11247/2024,
PIN - 682017.
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
SHRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY
SHRI.SREEJITH K.
SHRI. G.VISWANATHAN
SRI.N.ABHILASH
SRI.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
SRI.M.P.UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS
WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
19.08.2025,
THE
COURT ON 22.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA No.1498 of 2025 3 2025:KER:63425
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 08.04.2025
passed in W.P(C)No.11247 of2024, wherebythe learnedSingle Judge
has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
" i. There will be a declaration that the second respondent has no
authority to retain the original title deeds of the petitioner after
closure of a loan account.
ii. The direction to release the title documents belonging to the
petitioners is declined due to non-availability of the documents.
iii. Theclaimforcompensationraisedinthiswritpetitionisdeclined
reserving the right of the petitionerstoapproachappropriateother
forum.
Iv. An amount of Rs.50,000/- is imposed as costs on the second
respondent of which Rs.25,000/- shall be paidtothepetitionersand
the balance Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the Kerala Legal Services
Authority. The costs shall be paid within 15 days from the date of
receiptofacopyofthisjudgment.Itisclarifiedthat, thesecostsshall
not be set off against the compensation, if any, claimed by the
petitioner."
WA No.1498 of 2025 4 2025:KER:63425
3. The appellants hereinwere the respondentNos.1and 2in
the writ petition whereas the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the
petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the respondent Nos.3
and 4 in the writ petition.
4. ThebrieffactsofthecasearethatrespondentNos.1to3had
filed the writ petition seekingadirection torelease theirtitledeeds
and also for a declaration thatthe 2nd appellant had noauthority to
retain their original title deeds despite closure of the loan account.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the
learned Single Judgedid notconsiderthe maintainabilityofthewrit
petitionsincethereliefsoughtinthewritpetitionisnotinrelationto
discharge of any public function. The learned Single Judgeought to
have held thattheappellantshereinare theprivate Bank, therefore,
thewritpetitionitselfoughtnottohavebeenentertained.Hefurther
WA No.1498 of 2025 5 2025:KER:63425
pointed out that instead of considering the issue of maintainability,
thelearnedSingleJudgewentontodecidethewritpetitiononmerits
as also imposed heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- on the appellants. The
learned Counsel relying on the judgment passed in WA No.2130 of
2024, wherein the similar issue cropped up with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition, this Court had allowed the writ
appeal, dismissing the writ petition. The learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal
deserves to be allowed.
6. The learnedcounsel forthe appellantsrelied on ajudgment
passedbytheHon'bleApexCourtinS.Shobhav.MuthootFinanceLtd.,
[2025 (2) KHC 229] and paragraphnos.7, 8 &9ofthe said judgment
reads thus:
"7.Applyingtheabovetest,therespondenthereincannotbecalled
WA No.1498 of 2025 6 2025:KER:63425
apublicbody.Ithasnodutytowardsthepublic.It'sdutyistowards
its account holders, which may include the borrowers having
availed of the loan facility. It has no power to take anyaction,or
pass any order affecting the rights of the members of thepublic.
The binding nature of its orders and actions is confined to its
account holders and borrowers and to its employees.
Its functions are also not akin to Governmental functions
8. A body, public or private, should not be categorized as
"amenable" or "not amenable" to writ jurisdiction. The most
importantandvitalconsiderationshould bethe"function"testas
regardsthemaintainabilityofawritapplication.Ifapublicdutyor
publicfunctionisinvolved,anybody,publicorprivate,concerned
or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that,
would besubjecttojudicialscrutinyundertheextraordinarywrit
jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. We may sum up thus
(1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an
instrumentalityoragencyofaStateorshouldhavebeenentrusted
with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated
therewith by being of public importanceorbeingfundamentalto
the life of the people and hence Governmental.
(2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii)
Authority; (iii) astatutorybody;(iv)aninstrumentalityoragency
of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the
State;(vi)aprivatebodyrunsubstantiallyonStatefunding;(vii)a
private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of
WA No.1498 of 2025 7 2025:KER:63425
public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to
dischargeanyfunctionunderanyStatute,tocompelittoperform
such a statutory function.
(3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot
Finance Ltd.withwhichweareconcernedisdutyboundtofollow
andabidebytheguidelinesprovidedbytheReserveBankofIndia
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.
(4)AprivatecompanycarryingonbankingbusinessasaScheduled
bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public
function or public duty.
(5) Normally, mandamus isissuedtoapublicbodyorauthorityto
compelittoperformsomepublicdutycastuponitbysomestatute
or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a 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
statuteor statutoryruleandonlytocompelsuchbodytoperform
its public duty.
(6) Merely because a statue or arulehavingtheforceofastatute
requiresacompanyorsomeotherbodytodoaparticularthing,it
does not possess the attribute of a statutory body.
(7)Ifaprivatebodyisdischargingapublicfunctionandthedenial
ofanyrightsisinconnectionwiththepublicdutyimposedonsuch
body,thepubliclawremedycanbeenforced.Thedutycastonthe
publicbodymaybeeitherstatutoryorotherwiseandthesourceof
WA No.1498 of 2025 8 2025:KER:63425
such power is immaterial but, nevertheless, there must be the
public law element in such action.
(8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England,3rdEd.Vol.30,p.682,
"a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council,
municipal corporation or other local authority which has public
statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and
carriesoutitstransactionsforthebenefitofthepublicandnotfor
private profit". There cannot be any general definition of public
authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point."
7. According to the above judgment, the learned Single Judge
could not have entertained the writ petition against a private Bank
which would normally not be amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under
Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia.Theaspectofmaintainability
was not considered at all. It is a settled legal position that private
banks are not 'state' within the meaning of Article 12 of the
ConstitutionofIndiaassuch,notamenabletowritjurisdictionunder
Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.The judgmentpassed by the
WA No.1498 of 2025 9 2025:KER:63425
learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3
opposedtheaforeprayerandsubmittedthatthelearnedSingleJudge
has not committed any error, looking to the fact that the Private
Banks are also discharging publicfunctionsand that thedocuments
kept for nine long years even after closure of the account would
amounttoviolationofthefundamentalrightsofrespondentNos.1to
3. Therefore, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9.HeardthelearnedCounselfortheappellantsandthelearned
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of FederalBankLtd. v.
Sagar Thomasandothers reported in(2003)10 SCC733 has heldthat,
private companies, including private banks, would normally not be
amenabletothewritjurisdictionunderArticle226oftheConstitution
WA No.1498 of 2025 10 2025:KER:63425
of India.However, there arecertaincircumstanceswhere awrit may
beissuedtoprivatebodiesorpersonsiftherearestatutesthatneedto
be compliedwith by allconcerned,includingprivatecompanies.Itis
further held that merely because the Reserve BankofIndia haslaid
downthe banking policyintheinterestofthebankingsystemandin
the interest of monetary stabilityorsound economic growthhaving
dueregardtotheinterestsofthedepositors,thatdoesnotmeanthat
theprivatecompaniescarryingonthebusinessorcommercialactivity
of banking, discharge any public function or public duty.
11.ADivisionBenchofthisCourtinMathewIgnitiousC.v.Catholic
Syrian BankLimited[(2019(5) KHC835],hascategoricallyheldthata
scheduledbankregisteredasacompanyundertheCompaniesActdo
notfallwithinthepurviewof'State'orotherauthoritiesunderArticle
12oftheConstitutionofIndia.Therefore,suchabankisnotamenable
WA No.1498 of 2025 11 2025:KER:63425
to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant bank is a
privatecommercialbank,therefore,thesameisnotamenabletowrit
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
learnedSingleJudgehascommittedanerrorinentertainingtheWrit
Petition and issuing certain directions. In the case of Mathew
Ignitious(supra), ithas been alreadyheld thattheprivatescheduled
bank registered under the Companies Act do not fall within the
purview of "State" or other authorities under Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. As such, the judgment of the learned Single
Judge is hereby set aside. The Writ Petitionstandsdismissed as not
maintainable. However, the respondents 1 to 3 herein would be at
liberty to work out the remedies in accordance with law, if so advised.
WA No.1498 of 2025 12 2025:KER:63425
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC
