IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16370 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALICE JOSEPH ALANOLY,AGED 49, W/O.P.C.JOHN,XL/4335,ST.ALBERT'S HIGH SCHOOL LANE, COCHIN-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.ALOSIOUS GILBERT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- H.D.F.C.LTD,H.D.F.C.HOUSE,RAVIPURAM JUNCTION,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-682015,REPRESENTEDBY ITS MANAGER. ADV.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 16370 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner availed of a loan from the respondent, viz., HDFC Ltd. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking the following relief: “To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to settle her loan account No.3109729043 with effect from 1.8.2008 by adjusting the excess interest remitted since 1.9.2008 to the principle amount.” It is trite law that a writ petition would lie against a private party or institution only in respect of the violation of a statutory provision or refusal to discharge a public duty. The petitioner has no case that the State has any participation in the respondent. The matter relates to a loan transaction which is a contract between the parties. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that she is eligible for reduction in interest rate and facility for one time settlement for repayment of the loan. The petitioner does not allege violation of any statutory prescription or public duty. As such, this writ petition would not lie against the respondent for the relief prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2