IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16587 of 2005(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.N.KAMALAKSHI, W/O. BALAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKADUKARA, THIRUVANIYOOR, MAMALA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 305. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ERNAKULAM SOUTH, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, ALWAYE. 2. M/S. M.J. INTERNATIONAL, C-2, V.B. UDYOG, ST. VINCENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. 3. C. BALAGOPALA MENON, S/O. P. BALAKRISHNA MENON, 35/918,KUMARAKATH HOUSE NORTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 025. 4. B. VINOD, S/O.A.K.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, 35/1517, "AMBADI", SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, COCHIN-682 025. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 16587/2005. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DT. 24-8-2004. EXT.P2REPRESENTATION DT. 1-3-2004. EXT.P3REPRESENTATION DT. 22-9-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 16587 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 17th October, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) To issue the writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider and dispose the Ext. P. 2 and P3 with immediate effect. (ii) to issue the direction directing the 1st respondent to issue the statement regarding the liability of the petitioner in view of the settlement. (iii) to issue the direction to the first respondent to initiate the legal steps against the other partners respondents 2, 3 and 4.” 2. The reliefs are in respect of a loan transaction between the petitioner and the 1st respondent-Bank. It is settled law that the 1st respondent-Bank is not an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any event, in the transaction between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is not exercising any public function. It is purely a contractual matter, which cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/