IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14030 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JACSONS VENEERS AND PANELS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR JACOB THOMAS, ATLANTIS JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 015. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.K.R.KRISHNA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAYTAS INFRA LIMITED, 6-3-1186/5/A, III FLOOR, AMOGH PLAZA, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD. BY ADV. SHRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI. R.S. KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 14030 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The 1st respondent has issued a bank guarantee on behalf of the petitioner in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of a private contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition alleging that the 2nd respondent has invoked the bank guarantee by playing fraud on the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent not to release any amount under Ext. P6 Ban Guarantee in the event of the 2nd respondent invoking the same; ii) declare that 2nd respondent is not entitled to invoke Ext. P6 the Bank Guarantee.” 2. While issuing notice on admission, this Court granted an interim order. This writ petition comes up for admission after serving notice on the respondents. The respondents appear through counsel. The 2nd respondent disputes the maintainability of the writ petition itself on the ground that no writ petition is maintainable against the 2nd respondent who is a private entity. I am satisfied that this writ petition is not maintainable in so far as what is sought is enforcement of a private contract between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, which cannot be done in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to file a suit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now that an interim order has been passed, the petitioner may be given a breathing time to approach the civil court. W.P.C. No. 14030/2008 -: 2 :- Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable, I direct that the interim order shall continue for a period of one more week to enable the petitioner to seek his remedies in a civil suit. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/