High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-10Dismissed

Unnikrishnan Nair R v. Manager, HDFC Bank Cherthala Branch, Alappuzha & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2021-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 against a private bank; petitioner may pursue relief through other appropriate fora, especially since some loan restructuring had already occurred.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

UNNIKRISHNAN Nair R

Respondents

Manager, HDFC Bank Cherthala Branch, Alappuzha
Authorized Officer, Employee Loan Admin Team, HDFC Bank Ltd, Head Office, Mumbai
Authorized Officer, Pad Finance Team, HDFC Bank Ltd, Head Office, Mumbai
Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd, Head Office, Mumbai

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Georgie Simon
• Sri. Basil Chandy Vavachan
• Smt. Sandhya K.C.
• Smt. Surya Sundaresan
• Smt. Charutha Bhaiju

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. P. Binny Joseph
• Shri. Basil Mathew

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C) No. 25807 of 2020) filed before the Kerala High Court by the petitioner Unnikrishnan Nair R sought a mandamus directing the respondents, namely HDFC Bank Cherthala Branch and its authorised officers/managers, to regularise his housing loan for one year at the PLR interest rate and, upon completion of that period, permit a one-time settlement of the outstanding loan. An interim order dated 13 January 2021 required the bank to accept the petitioner’s EMI payments subject to further orders. The respondents countered that a private bank is not bound by Article 226 and that the writ petition is not maintainable against a private financial institution. The petitioner argued that the loan had already been restructured and that the court should recognise the relief despite the bank’s private status, while the bank emphasised commercial autonomy and non-public duties. The court scrutinised maintainability under Article 226, citing relevant authorities including Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas, Sleebachan v. State of Kerala, Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Girish G & others v. State of Kerala, and Mathew Ignitious v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited. It held that the Bank does not perform a public duty, and thus writ jurisdiction would not lie. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, though the court noted the petitioner could seek relief through other appropriate fora, as some loan restructuring had already occurred.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Public duty

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued for mandamus to regularise the housing loan for one year at the PLR rate and thereafter permit a one-time settlement of the outstanding loan. He highlighted that the respondents had already restructured the loan and that the interim order, directing acceptance of EMI, should not bar relief at final hearing. He contended maintainability under Article 226 should not hinge on the private status of the bank given the Court’s protective role in enforcing housing loan agreements. The argument framed the dispute as one of public interest and fair conduct in loan management, urging the Court to intervene despite private ownership.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that HDFC Bank is a private bank and not a State instrumentality; there is no public duty in conducting ordinary banking business, hence a writ under Article 226 would not lie. They relied on authorities including Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas and others to establish non-maintainability, emphasized the bank’s commercial autonomy, and argued that the dispute concerns private contracts rather than statutory or public-law obligations. They submitted that the Court should refrain from interfering with private financial transactions.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas	2010 (3) SCC 733	Positive	Court uses this decision to support that banking is not a 'public duty' and a writ under Article 226 would not lie against banks.
Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas	(2003)10 SCC 733	Positive	Same proposition cited to reinforce non-maintainability of writ petitions against private banks.
Sleebachan v. State of Kerala	2020 (4) KLT online 1024: 2020 (5) KLT SN.11	Positive	Division Bench held that a bank is not performing a public duty and hence a writ petition is not maintainable.
Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection	(2019) 14 SCC 189	Positive	IBPS not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 as it does not discharge a public function.
Girish G & others v. State of Kerala	ILR 2020 (2) Ker 676	Positive	CIAL not an authority under Article 12; no writ will lie for enforcing personal contracts in termination-of-service context.
Mathew Ignitious v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited	2020 (1) KLJ 132	Positive	Court held that no writ petition lies against Catholic Syrian Bank; supports private-bank non-maintainability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Unnikrishnan Nair R v. Manager, HDFC Bank Cherthala Branch, Alappuzha & Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER:** **UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR R AGED 34 YEARS** **S/O RAMACHANDRAN, MANNATHUMADOM, VALAMANGALAM, THURAVOOR.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GEORGIE SIMON SRI.BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN SMT.SANDHYA K.C. SMT.SURYA SUNDARESAN SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MANAGER, HDFC BANK CHERTHALA BRANCH,ALAPPUZHA.** **2 AUTHORISED OFFICER, EMPLOYEE LOAN ADMIN TEAM, H.R. DEPARTMENT, HDFC BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, MUMBAI 1ST FLOOR, CS NO.6/242, SENAPATI, BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013.** - **3 AUTHORISED OFFICER,** - **PAD FINANCE TEAM, H.R DEPARTMENT, HDFC BANK LTD,HEAD OFFICE,MUMBAI, 1ST FLOOR,CS NO.6/252,SENAPATI, BAPAT MARG,LOWER PAREL,MUMBAI-400013.** - **4 MANAGER,HDFC BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE,MUMBAI,1ST FLOOR, CS NO.6/242,SENAPATI,BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI-400013.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.BINNY JOSEPH BY ADV. SHRI.BASIL MATHEW** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 2 ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed against the HDFC Bank and its authorised Officers and Manager, seeking the following reliefs: - I) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to regularise the above said housing loan for one year as per the PLR interest rate additionally charged by the respondent and thereafter allow him to close the outstanding amount of said loan at that time as one time settlement. ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable court deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. This Court had passed an interim order on 13.01.2021 when the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that by refusing to accept the arrears of EMI offered by the petitioner respondent were going to to make the account of the petitioner NPA. Respondents was thereupon directed to accept the EMI towards the loan subject to further orders. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit along with a petition to vacate the interim order **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 3 raising the question of maintainability pointing out that respondent Bank is a Private Bank which does not come within the ambit of State or eligible for a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have already granted him the benefit and even they have re-structured the loan though the interim order passed by this Court was only in respect of receiving the EMI and therefore the question of maintainability need not be decided. 5. However the respondents have filed the counter affidavit and petition for vacating the interim order and pressed the same even after complying with the interim order and after the restructuring of the loan availed by the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents were directed to comply with the order as a condition for considering the application filed for vacating the interim order. **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 4 6. Respondents relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas** [2010 (3) SCC 733] in support of the said contention. Since the respondents have raised the question of maintainability I need go into the merits of the case only after determining the issue regarding maintainability. 7. Respondent have stated that respondent Bank is a Scheduled Bank engaged in the business of banking without any assistance from Central or State Governments. 8. In **Federal Bank v. Sagar Thomas** [(2003)10 SCC 733] the Apex Court held that the business of banking does not fall within the expression “public duty” and hence a Writ Petition would not lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In **Mathew Ignitious v. Catholic Syrian Bank Limited** [2020 (1) KLJ 132], this Court held that no writ petition will lie against catholic Syrian Bank. **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 5 The Division Bench of this Court has after elaborate analysis of various judgments on the issue, in the judgment in **Sleebachan v. State of Kerala** [2020 (4) KLT online 1024: 2020 (5) KLT SN.11], held that Bank is not performing any public duty and hence a Writ Petition is not maintainable. 10. In **Rajbir Surajbhan Singh v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection** [(2019) 14 SCC 189] it was held therein that the IBPS was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it was not discharging any public function as its activity of conducting the selection process for appointment to Banks was purely voluntary and not out of any statutory obligation. In **Girish G & another v. State of Kerala & others** [2020 KHC 289: ILR 2020 (2) Ker 676], this Court held that CIAL is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and no writ will lie against it for enforcing personal contracts, while considering the validity of **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 6 the orders terminating services of certain employees. 11. Petitioner in this case does not have a case that there is any statutory violation on the part of the respondents or that there is any breach of public duty involved in granting or recovering loan amount. This Court is not supposed to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the respondents or with the commercial contracts entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore I find that writ petition is not maintainable. The judgment will not stand in the way of any benefit being granted by the respondents to the petitioner otherwise. Petitioner would also be at liberty to approach any appropriate forum. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ## **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE** AS **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HOUSING LOAN APPLIED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.5.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF LOAN AGREEMENT OF PETITIONER WITH RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN STATEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 6.10.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS THROUGH EMAIL.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY EMAILS FROM THE RESPONDENTS REJECTING PETITIONER REQUEST.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 10.08.2020 SENT BY PETITIONER TO HR BUSINESS PARTNER OF RESPONDENT BANK, MS.TARAN AND ZONAL HEAD OF E-COMMERCE TEAM, MR.SUMIT IN CONNECTION WITH RESIGNATION OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY MAIL DATED 13.08.2020 SENT BY ZONAL HEAD OF E- COMMERCE TEAM, MR.SUMIT TO PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF MAIL DATED 14.09.2020 PERMITTING PETITIONER TO RESIGN FROM JOB SENT BY ZONAL HEAD OF E-COMMERCE TEAM, MR.SUMIT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF LOAN STATEMENT OF PETITIONER'S NEW LOAN ACCOUNT NO.9484570** **WP(C).No.25807 OF 2020(A)** 8 ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 17/6/2019 EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE FORECLOUSER STATEMENT DATED 1/12/2020 EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DATED 1/12/2020 IT IS EVIDENT THAT RESPONDENT'S LOAN ACCOUNT HAS BEEN RE STRUCTURED ON 16/9/2020**