IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20807 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ P.I.DEVASIA, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.ITTYAVIRAH, PARAYIL HOUSE, PLASSANAL POST, THALAPALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL) SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN SMT.K.B.SONY SRI.SANU.S.PANICKER RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SRI.C.A.JOY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ============== W.P.(C).No. 20807 OF 2008 ==================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of loan amounts due to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner now approaches this Court seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement scheme allegedly available to him. The 2nd respondent is the Chairman of the Catholic Syrian Bank, which is not a nationalised bank but only a scheduled bank. In the case of a similar scheduled bank, namely, the Federal Bank, the Supreme Court has held that such banks are not 'state' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore no writ petition would lie against the Federal Bank. Since Catholic Syrian Bank stands on the same footing, the said decision would apply to the Catholic Syrian Bank also. Of course, if the 2nd respondent was exercising a public function, perhaps, a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India would have been maintainable against action in respect of such public function. But here, this is purely a contractual relationship W.P.(C).No. 20807 OF 2008 2 between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent like just any other ordinary private debtor and creditor relationship which has no public character. That being so, I am not satisfied that this writ petition would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-