Private banks do not fall under Article 12 of the Constitution and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction, unless discharging public duties.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 08.04.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.11247 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

“i. There will be a declaration that the second respondent has no authority to retain the original title deeds of the petitioner after closure of a loan account.

ii. The direction to release the title documents belonging to the petitioners is declined due to non-availability of the documents.

iii. The claim for compensation raised in this writ petition is declined reserving the right of the petitioners to approach appropriate other forum.

Iv. An amount of Rs.50,000/- is imposed as costs on the second respondent of which Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the petitioners and the balance Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to the Kerala Legal Services Authority. The costs shall be paid within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that, these costs shall not be set off against the compensation, if any, claimed by the petitioner.”

3. The appellants herein were the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition whereas the respondent Nos.1 to 3 were the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition.

4. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had filed the writ petition seeking a direction to release their title deeds nd and also for a declaration that the 2 appellant had no authority to retain their original title deeds despite closure of the loan account.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider the maintainability of the writ petition since the relief sought in the writ petition is not in relation to discharge of any public function. The learned Single Judge ought to have held that the appellants herein are the private Bank, therefore, the writ petition itself ought not to have been entertained. He further pointed out that instead of considering the issue of maintainability, the learned Single Judge went on to decide the writ petition on merits as also imposed heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- on the appellants. The learned Counsel relying on the judgment passed in WA No.2130 of 2024, wherein the similar issue cropped up with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, this Court had allowed the writ appeal, dismissing the writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd. , [2025 (2) KHC 229] and paragraph nos. 7, 8 & 9 of the said judgment reads thus:

“7. Applying the above test, the respondent herein cannot be called a public body. It has no duty towards the public. It's duty is towards its account holders, which may include the borrowers having availed of the loan facility. It has no power to take any action, or pass any order affecting the rights of the members of the public. The binding nature of its orders and actions is confined to its account holders and borrowers and to its employees.

Its functions are also not akin to Governmental functions

8. A body, public or private, should not be categorized as “amenable” or “not amenable” to writ jurisdiction. The most important and vital consideration should be the “function” test as regards the maintainability of a writ application. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of