IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

Hu Si Niang

No.3C/5, Latha Flats Mangala Nagar,

1^st Cross Street, Porur,

Chennai - 600 116.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.M/s. HSBC Ltd.,

Mumbai Fort Main Branch,

No.52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

2.Reserve Bank of India

Fort Glacis, No.16, Rajaji Road,

Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 001.

3.Reserve Bank of India

6, Sansad Marg, Sansad Marg Area,

New Delhi, Delhi – 110 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent Reserve Bank of India to initiate appropriate action into the representation dated 26.02.2025 with regard to the Non-payment of the 6 fixed deposits, deposited with the 1^st Respondent

HSBC Ltd, Fort Mumbai Branch.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Arun Kumar

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the second respondent Reserve Bank of India to initiate appropriate action into the petitioner’s representation dated 26.02.2025 with regard to the Non-payment of the 6 fixed deposits, deposited with the 1^st Respondent HSBC Ltd, Fort Mumbai Branch.

2.The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1990 he had opened 6 fixed deposits and all were in US $. The total sum deposited by the petitioner amounted to more than $ 30,000. All the above mentioned fixed deposits were put on auto renewal mode. The petitioner after opening the 6 fixed deposits migrated to the USA and stayed their continuously till 2011. Since 2011 the petitioner is residing in India and that in the year 2023 the petitioner produced 6 FD receipts before the first respondent bank and sought for return of his money. However, the first respondent after receipt of the petitioner's complaint, sent it to their Ombudsman, who termed the same as vintage account and closed the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter lodged a complaint with the second respondent/RBI Chennai on 26.02.2025. However, no action has been taken by the second respondent till date. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a direction be issued to the second respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated

26.02.2025 and to pass appropriate order, within a stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

4.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5.The petitioner has sought for a direction to the second respondent for initiating appropriate action into the representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2025 with regard to the non-payment of the 6 fixed deposits, deposited with the first respondent HSBC Ltd, Fort Mumbai Branch. However, a writ petition is not maintainable as against the private bank. As regards the maintainability of a writ petition against a private bank, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and Ors. [MANU/SC/0769/2003]; [(2003) 10 SCC 733] dated 26.09.2003, has held as under;

“32. The other case which has been heavily relied upon is Andi Mukta (supra). It is no doubt held that a Mandamus can be issued to any person or authority performing public duty, owing positive obligation to the affected party. The writ petition was held to be maintainable since the teacher whose services were terminated by the institution was affiliated to the university and was governed by the Ordinances, casting certain obligations which it owed to that petitioner. But it is not the case here. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to paragraphs 12, 13 and 21 of the decision (Andi Mukta) to indicate that even according to this case no writ would lie against the private body except where it has some obligation to discharge which is statutory or of public character.

33. Merely because the Reserve Bank of India lays the banking policy in the interest of the banking system or in the interest of monetary stability or s