( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties,

( 2 ) THE petitioner took a loan in respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued. The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court should fix instalments. In our opinion under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court has no power to fix instalments.

( 3 ) FIXING instalments is really rescheduling of the loan, which can only be done by the Bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan. A large number of petitions are being filed before us in which the only prayer is that the High Court should fix instalments or grant one time settlement. In our opinion the High Court has no power to fix instalments or to grant one time settlement. Fixing instalments or granting one time settlement is really rescheduling of the loan which the High Court cannot do only the bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan can do so. These are really the contractual matters and the High Court cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that there are well settled limitations on the power of the high Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 (1) of the constitution states :"not with standing anything in Article 32 [* * *] every High Court shall have power. throughout the territories In relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to Issue to any person or authority, Including In appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qua warran to and certlorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part iii and for any other purpose.)"

( 5 ) IF we go by the plain wording of Article 226 (1) an impression is created that the High court can issue a writ to any person whomsoever and for any purpose whatsoever. However, we cannot take a literal Interpretation of Article 226 {! ). For Instance, although article 226 states that a writ can be Issued for any purpose this does not mean that writs can be issued for granting divorces, for enforcing contracts between private parties, or for cancelling sale deeds etc. There are well settled limitation on the powers of the high Court to issue a writ, even though Article 226 by its plain language creates the impression that a writ can be issued to any person and for any purpose.

( 6 ) THE correct interpretation of Article 226 is that a writ can be issued to the persons to whom -and, for the purpose for Which, writs were traditionally Issued by the British Court on well established principles, vide Election commissioner v. Saka Venkat (1953) SCR 1144 : (AIR 1953 SC 210), Basappa v. Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440, etc. One of the well established principles, on which the british Court issued writs was that a writ of certiorari will issue only when there Is error of law apparent on the face of the record and a mandamus will issue for enforcement of a legal right or performance of legal duty, vide fertilzer Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344 (para 10), State of Orissa v. Madangopal Rungta (1952) SCR 28 (33): (AIR 1952 SC 12), Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of west Bengal, AIR 1962 SC 1044 (1047-8 ).

( 7 ) SIMILARLY, although Article 226 on the face of it says that a writ can be issued to any person, by judicial interpretation the courts have placed a restricted interpretation to the language of Article 226, and it has been held that writs except (a writ of habeas corpus) can only be issued to the state or an instrumentality of the State, and not to private persons vide Dr. Anand Kumar gupta v. Rajghat Education Centre, 2003 All lj 587, General Manager, Modipan Fibre Co. v. Narendra Pal Gahlot, 2003 All LJ 980, G. Basi Reddy v. International Crops Research institute, 2003 (2) All WC 1199 (SC) : (AIR 2003 SC 1764), Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar thomas (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2728 : (AIR 2003 sc 4325), Anil Kumar Agarwal v. U. P. Stock

Click Here to Read the rest of this document