A writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private financial institution as it does not fulfill public duty obligations, making it not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the first respondent/private financial institution to refund the sale price of Rs.1,35,30,000/- deposited by the petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 05.05.2025 till the date of repayment.

2. Quintessential facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are stated infra: Respondent No.1 is a private financial institution and is a secured creditor, which proceeded to auction a secured asset in the form of a mortgage created in its favour by the borrower. The petitioner emerged as a successful bidder in the auction proceedings and after fulfilling the terms and conditions of auction, he deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.1,35,30,000/- with the first respondent/institution. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a sale certificate in his favour on 05.05.2025 itself.

2.1. The petitioner intended to have the sale certificate registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Kancheepuram, to which the first respondent/institution agreed and steps in that direction were taken by the petitioner as well as by the first respondent. Though the registration was scheduled on 20.05.2025, however, upon approaching the office of the Sub-Registrar on that date, the petitioner was informed that the registration could not be completed because of an objection dated 16.12.2024 filed by one Mrs.N.Azhagi, W/o Mr.Natarajan, claiming rights over the property. As a dispute was raised, the Sub-Registrar returned the sale certificate without registration.

2.2. The petitioner having now realised that he has purchased a litigious property, extended a request to the first respondent/institution to refund the entire amount of sale consideration which was paid by him in the auction proceedings. However, the first respondent, in reply to the petitioner's request, did not refund the amount, though it clearly stated that it is in support of the petitioner towards registration of sale certificate and would also be supporting petitioner's cause in the matter of claim for registration of the certificate with the Sub-Registrar, Kancheepuram.

2.3. The petitioner, having found that his money has been blocked, as according to him he has purchased a litigious property, has filed this petition seeking the relief as stated above.

3. During the course of argument, it transpired that the first respondent/institution, against which a writ of mandamus is sought by the petitioner, is a private financial institution and therefore, during the course of arguments on the earlier date of hearing, the issue with regard to maintainability of this very petition arose and the question, which the Court is now required to answer, is as to whether the first respondent, a private financial institution, is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. We requested Sri.Chevanan Mohan, learned counsel, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae, even though he is appearing for the second respondent, which otherwise is not interested in the outcome of the litigation and has been arrayed only as a formal party without any relief being sought against it by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the first respondent/institution has also raised his objection to the maintainability of this petition on the submission that that the first respondent is not amenable to writ jurisdiction and therefore, thi