A writ petition against a bank is not maintainable as banks are not considered 'State' under Article 12, and petitioners must explore alternative remedies.

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

“ i) Issue a Writ of Manadamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent Bank to release the title deeds vide Regd.Gift Deed No.2718/1986 dated 16.09.1986, Regd.Gift Deed No.2723/1986 dated 16.09.1986, Regd.Jenm Deed No.50/1996 dated 02.01.1996, Regd.Gift Deed No.185/1999 dated 23.01.1999 and Regd.Gift Deed No.3037/2000 dated 06.09.2000 forthwith with respect to the property comprised in 30 ¼ cents of land in Re.Sy.No.143/1 of Taliparamba Village pledged with the 3rd respondent for the loan that is already settled as certified in Ext.P1. ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the documents released for the settled loan as certified in Ext.P1. iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. According to the petitioner, he has settled the loan liability with the 3rd respondent with respect to which the documents mentioned above were deposited to create mortgage and that there is no other loan liability and that in spite of repeated request on the part of the petitioner, the respondents are not returning the titled deeds.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though loan liability is settled by the petitioner, the title documents deposited by the petitioner were misplaced and lost from the hands of the respondents and the same is communicated to the petitioner through Ext.P3.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents that no reliefs can be given in the writ petition since the respondents do not come within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India . He cited the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd v. Sagar Thomas [ 2003 (10) SCC 733 ] and the decision of this Court in Electrotec Power Systems v. Manager, Federal Bank [ 2023 KHC 9375 ] in support of the contention that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the 3rd respondent Bank.

5. I find from the aforesaid decisions that in the said cases the maintainability of the Writ Petition against the 3rd respondent is decided and I hold that the Writ Petition against WP(C) NO.37754 OF 2016 the respondents is not maintainable in this Court. That apart, going by the contentions revealed in the Writ Petition, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere and accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed.