A private banking institution is not deemed to perform a public duty and is not liable to issues of writs for its commercial activities.

1. The petitioner, who was an engineering contractor, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs : -
"(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction to the Respondent Bank quashing the decision leading to Exhibit P6 and direct the respondent to consider the application for issue of Solvency Certificate made by the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders therein within a reasonable time so as to enable the petitioner duly complete the formalities mandated for renewal of his licence as seen from Exhibit P5.
(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction to the Respondent Bank directing them to re classify the Petitioner's account as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and not to arbitrarily classify the account of the Petitioner as Non - Performing Asset despite there being no default by the Petitioner as seen from Exhibit P10.
(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction to the 1st respondent directing them to grant further time to the Petitioner for submission of application for renewal of licence as contemplated in Exhibit P5, in the event of any delay caused by the Respondent Bank in issuing the Solvency Certificate."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 respondent Bank.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the partnership firm of which the petitioner is a partner had an account with the 2 respondent Bank, which has been wrongly classified as Non - Performing Asset (NPA). It is stated that substantial amounts had been paid to the 2 respondent to clear the liabilities of the firm as early as in January, 2020 and that the non - issuance of solvency certificate is resulting in the petitioner being unable to renew his licence as a Government contractor. It is stated that solvency certificates are issued even where accounts are classified as NPA and that in the present case, the classification is against the master circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 respondent would contend that the 2 respondent is only a scheduled bank and that the prayers sought for in the writ petition therefore, cannot be issued as against the 2 respondent. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 733 : (AIR 2003 SC 4325)], it is contended that the Apex Court has clearly held that a scheduled bank is only a private body and that the commercial activity of banking does not answer the definition of public duty. It is therefore submitted that no writ of mandamus could be issued as against a scheduled bank to enforce a purely commercial duty. It is further submitted that the account had been classified as NPA as early as in January, 2020 and that the facts are perfectly well known to the petitioner. It is contended that the classification of the account is a factual dispute and that this Court is not expected to go into the factual aspects of the matter.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Binny Ltd. and Anr. v. V Sadasivan and Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 657 : (AIR 2005 SC 3202)], in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 367 : (AIR 2001 SC 3095)] and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pt. Girija Shankar Sharma v. Collector, Hoshangabad [AIR 1974 MP 83]. It is contended that the decision in Sagar Thomas's case was issued in the factual backdrop where a service dispute was sought to be raised in a writ petition by an employee of the Federal Bank and it was i