BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU WP(MD)No.10395 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.Viswanathan :Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Reserve Bank of India, Rep.through the Authorized Officer, South Zone, Near Paris Corner, Chennai. 2.The Branch Manager, The South Indian Bank Ltd.,Nochiyam, 4/81, Trichy Salem Main Road, Nochiyam,Thiruchirappalli. :Respondents Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to release gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner pertaining the two gold loan accounts No.GL 0209653000012862 and GL 0209653000012864 dated 16.08.2010 after receiving the Principal, interest and other charges payable. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Padmaraj For Respondents : Mr.R.Pandivel for R2 ORDER The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent / Bank to release his gold ornaments pertaining to two gold loan accounts in two numbers dated 16.08.2010 after receiving the principal, interest and other charges payable or any other relief. 2.When the matter came up on 14.09.2011, notice regarding admission was granted and an interim stay was also granted for a limited period. The interim stay was not extended thereafter. 3.On notice from this Court, the 2nd respondent appears through counsel. It is not clear as to how such a Writ petition is maintainable as against a private bank. Though it may be a scheduled bank having a licence issued by the 1st respondent / RBI, the nature of the complaint in the Writ petition is purely contractual. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any alleged unjust action on the part of the 2nd respondent/Bank a remedy is only by filing a suit and not a Writ petition. The Supreme Court vide judgment in Federal Bank Ltd., Vs. Sager Thomas reported in 2003(10) SCC 733 has held that a Writ petition will not lie as against the private bank even though it is a scheduled and it cannot be held to be an instrumentality of the State The Supreme Court even after applying the tests laid down in Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi reported in 1981(1) SCC 722 and the subsequent judgment of the seven judge bench in Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology reported in 2002(5) SCC 111 negatived the claim in relation to a private Bank. 4.In the light of the above, the Writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AE) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To:The Authorized Officer,The Reserve Bank of India, South Zone, Near Paris Corner, Chennai. +1CC to Mr.C.Padmaraj, Advocate. SR.No.37500. RP/21.11.2011/1P/3C. W.P.(MD)No.10395 of 2011,31.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/