Writ against a private bank is not maintainable; proper procedure for complaints must be followed.

JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ,J The present intra-court Appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 30.01.2026 passed in WP(C) No.3395/2026 by this Court, whereby the Writ Petition has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners have filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs:

“i. call for the records leading to Exhibits P5 to P8, P13 and P13(a), all issued by the respondent bank as well as Exhibits P15 and P15(a) documents declining interference in the complaints preferred by the petitioners before the Banking Ombudsman and all steps taken pursuant thereto and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction;

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to withdraw all steps taken to auction the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioners and all other coercive steps taken against them without rendering the petitioner an opportunity to take essential steps for settling the loan accounts with the bank after getting released from their unjustified incarceration:

iii. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5th respondent to reconsider Exhibit P14 series of complaints and take a decision on the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or through their authorized representative within the time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;

iv. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the 2^nd respondent bank authorities from proceeding with any coercive steps, including auctioning of the gold ornaments pledged, pursuant to Exhibits P5 to P8 and P13 series of notices, in respect of the gold loans availed by the petitioner and his wife, till the final adjudication on Exhibit P14 series of complaint on merits;

v. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to take up Exhibit P10 representation submitted by the petitioner and pass orders on the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner through an authorized representative;

vi. issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to mulct the petitioners against the loans availed by other entity without independently proceeding against the principal borrower;

vii. direct the 3^rd and 4^th respondent to furnish all the detailed accounts of the various loans mentioned in Exhibit P5 communication to the petitioner herein forthwith;

viii. Grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit and proper for this Hon’ble Court to award the costs of this Writ Petition;”

The Writ Petition was dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants herein have filed the present Writ Appeal.

3. The Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 5^th respondent banking Ombudsman has rejected his complaint vide Ext.P15 and P15(a) stating that the complaints were filed without waiting for 30 days after submitting the compliant to the regulating entity (Dhanalaxmi Bank) as required, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the Writ Petition and directed the Banking Ombudsman, ie, the 5^th respondent to re- consider the complaints and to take a decision on the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing within a time frame. Instead of passing such a direction, the Writ Petition has been dismissed. Therefore, the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 at the threshold, pointed out that the appellants herein had already approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Petition No.863/2026 p