Heard Sri Vijay Kumar,Advocate holding brief of Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Mayank Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.6.
This petition has been filed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no.6 i.e, Mahendra Kotak Bank Limited to release the Tractor bearing Chassis No.BYBDS81190453 of the petitioner. It has further been prayed that a direction be issued to the opposite party no.6 to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount in easy instalments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the whole amount in instalments.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against the private bank and considering the same the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition and a Coordinate Bench of this Court has also dismissed the writ petition in Misc. Single No.23147 of 2019(Anil Kumar versus State of U.P.).
The relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 of Writ Petition Misc. Single No.23147 of 2019 are extracted below:-
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment and order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.31577 (MB) of 2018 (Rakesh Kumar Pandey vs. District Magistrate, Faizabad), wherein a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition by referring to a judgment and order dated 6.2.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2530 (MB) of 2017. A copy of the judgment dated 6.2.2017 referred to, by the Division Bench in Rakesh Kumar Pandey (supra) has been provided by the learned counsel for the Bank Sri Shashank Pathak, in which, this Court observed that if the petitioner is facing any threat with regard to seizure of his vehicle forcibly, he can always lodge a FIR in case any offcence is committed and if the FIR is not lodged, then he can move an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Court observed that they were not inclined to entertain the writ petition and therefore, consigned the same to the records.
6. Learned counsel for the Bank has also referred to a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas and others 2003 (10) SCC 733 and Para-34 thereof, wherein the Supreme Court after referring to Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others vs. V.R. Rudani and Org., (1989) IILLJ 324SC and to the judgments rendered in other several cases relating to Article 12 of the Constitution of India and writ jurisdiction to be exercised in such matters by the High Court, has observed that a private company carrying banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or public duty. A private body and a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. A private company carrying on commercial activity of banking cannot be said to be performing public duty, therefore, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court against such action of the private company working as a bank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner has taken a loan which was in the nature of a private contract between the petitioner and the opposite party no.6.
In view of above, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
.
.
.............................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Akanksha