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
