1. In these cases, the petitioners have sought for quashing the communication at Annexure ‘A’ dated 24.12.2014 sent by M/s ICICI Bank, Yelahanka New Town Branch, Bangalore-the second respondent herein informing them that the bank account bearing No. 041101000888 has been freezed subject to further orders in the suit O.S. No. 1463/2014 filed by the Prestige Monte Carlo Apartment Owners Association represented by Mr. Amit Chatterjee.

2. The first petitioner contends that it is an association incorporated under the Karnataka Apartments Owners, Act, 1972. The residential apartment complex comprises of 440 flats known as ‘Prestige Monte Cario Apartment’ situated at Doddaballapur Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore. The apartment building has several amenities such as security, swimming pool, club house, lifts, etc. Each of the apartment owners in the apartment building contribute certain amount every month towards the maintenance of the aforesaid amenities. It is further contended that the general body of the first petitioner-association passed a resolution during the emergency general body meeting held on 19.10.2014 electing the second petitioner as its President, the third petitioner as its treasurer and certain other apartment owners as the Secretary and members of the managing committee of the association. The general body removed the erstwhile office bearers of the managing committee in accordance with the bye laws. The association deposits the maintenance charges in the aforesaid account in the first respondent-Bank from time to time and cheques are issued to various service providers for the maintenance of common area and for providing other facilities. The second petitioner and other office bearers have been operating the aforesaid bank account. The previous President of the association, namely, Mr. Jubain Varky and previous Secretary Mr. Amit Chatterjee have filed O.S. No. 1463/2014 against a few residents including the new office bearers of the association. There is sufficient balance in the bank account of the association. However, the Bank has sent a communication at Annexure ‘A’ freezing the bank account of the association contrary to law.

3. Respondent No.3 has filed the statement of objections contending that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are only self-styled President and Secretary of the Prestige Monte Carlo Apartment Owners’ Association Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are the elected President, Secretary and Treasurer of the association. They have been duly elected in a meeting held on 20.7.2014 for a term of one year as per by-law 24 of the Bye-laws of the Association. The so called special meeting conduced by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is not in accordance with the bye-laws. Respondent No.5 as the Secretary of the association has filed a suit O.S. 1463/2014 before the Civil Court seeking a declaration that the alleged special meeting of 19.10.2014 is illegal and does not bind the association. The petitioners have entered appearance in the suit and have filed their written statement. The mandamus sought for by the petitioners is not preceded by a demand. Respondent No.2 is a private Bank and not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned letter, their remedy is only a civil remedy. Therefore, the writ petitioners are not maintainable. They have denied the other averments made in the writ petitions.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contend that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the duly elected President and Treasurer of the first petitioner-association. The second respondent-Bank has illegally freezed the account of the first petitioner-association. Merely because the suit has been filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5, the Bank cannot freeze account. No interim order has been passed by the Civil Court in the suit. He submits that the second respondent cannot freeze the account contrary to the Regulations of the Reserve Bank of India.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for resp