Dismissed

Shabina v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2025WRIC/9226/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A borrower sought writ-court intervention against a private housing finance company for allegedly improper interest charges on a housing loan. The court held that the company performed no statutory duty and was not amenable to writ jurisdiction, and dismissed the petition with liberty to approach an appropriate forum.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shabina Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9226 of 2025

Shabina

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Singh Chauhan, Amitabh Singh Chauhan, Shameem Jahan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 2

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

This petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

¶10

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite party no.3 to permit the petitioner to close Housing loan A/c No.19300045067 by Fixing the actual balance amount of the said loan after deducting all EMIs already paid and by Adjusting the amount of Rs.41,318/-, which was improperly charged by the opposite party no.3 during the COVID – 19 period, in the interest of justice.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the opposite party no.2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 27.08.2025 during pendency of the present writ petition, contained a Annexure No.3 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken a housing loan from the respondent no.2 and 3 but even after paying all the EMIs the respondent no.3 has charged an amount of Rs.41,318/-.

¶13

The petitioners' loan is 9,88,131/-, a total of Rs.7,69,256/- has been deposited without any break or delay in Pewan housing finance corporation Limited (DHFL) which was later merged with Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited, respondent no.2.

¶14

The petitioner has deposited Rs.3,55,072/- in Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited from July 2022 till August, 2025.

¶15

Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited has arbitrarily increased the rate of

¶16

WRIC No. 9226 of 2025

¶17

¶18

interest by 1.25% on monthly basis without any information or notice to the petitioner and has given a Loan Pre Closure Statement to the petitioner on 31.8.2025 according to which the total loan amount mentioned as 9,90,600/which is erroneous and wrong, hence, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayers.

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition against a private housing finance company.

¶20

The counsel for the petitioner as placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in Proview Constructions Limited vs. Union of India and Others : Writ C No.28679/2024: Neutral Citation No.-2025:AHC:20822-DB wherein company had approached this Court against the action of Kotak Mahindra Bank, respondent no.2 for freezing the Bank account of petitioner company on account of a matrimonial dispute of the Director of the company.

¶21

It has been argued before the Court that the communication of the respondent – bank acknowledges that a sum of Rs.10,57,00000/- is lying in the current account of the petitioner company and there is neither any order passed by the competent Court regarding directing the respondent bank to freeze the Bank account of the petitioner company nor any direction issued by the Investigating Officer for freezing the petitioner's Bank account.

¶22

No action has been taken against the petitioner company by any competent authority for freezing its Bank account yet only on the basis of application made by alleged wife of the Director of the company for freezing the Bank account the petitioner company, Bank account has been freezed.

¶23

High Court has entertained the writ petition because of the fact private banking company has acted against law as there is no order passed by any competent court to freeze the petitioner's bank account. Court has, therefore, directed the Kotak Mahindra to release the Bank account of the petitioner company.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas and Others [AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4235] wherein the question of maintainability of a writ petition against a private company/ scheduled bank was considered. The Court had observed that a writ petition against a private bank by an employee could not be acceptable as he was not trying to enforce a statutory duty on the part of the Bank.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 24.01.2025 in SLP ( C ) No.26252627/25 [S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Limited] .

¶26

WRIC No. 9226 of 2025

¶27

¶28

We have gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the observations made therein as mentioned in para 9 which is enclosed as under:-

¶29

"9. We may sum up thus:

¶30

(1) For issuing writ against a legal entity, it would have to be an instrumentality or agency of a State or should have been entrusted with such functions as are Governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence Governmental.

¶31

(2) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State Government; (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.

¶32

(3) Although a non-banking finance company like the Muthoot Finance Ltd. with which we are concerned is duty bound to follow and abide by the guidelines provided by the Reserve Bank of India for smooth conduct of its affairs in carrying on its business, yet those are of regulatory measures to keep a check and provide guideline and not a participatory dominance or control over the affairs of the company.

¶33

(4) A private company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank cannot be termed as a company carrying on any public function or public duty.

¶34

(5) Normally, mandamus is issued to a public body or authority to compel it to perform some public duty cast upon it by some statute or statutory rule. In exceptional cases a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus may issue to a private body, but only where a public duty is cast upon such private body by a statute or statutory rule and only to compel such body to perform its public duty.

¶35

(6) Merely because a statue or a rule having the force of a statute requires a company or some other body to do a particular thing, it does not possess the attribute of a statutory body.

¶36

(7) If a private body is discharging a public function and the denial of any rights is in connection with the public duty imposed on such body, the public law remedy can be enforced. The duty cast on the public body may be either statutory or otherwise and the source of such power is immaterial but,

¶37

WRIC No. 9226 of 2025

¶38

¶39

nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action.

¶40

(8) According to Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Ed. Vol.30, p.682, "a public authority is a body not necessarily a county council, municipal corporation or other local authority which has public statutory duties to perform, and which perform the duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit". There cannot be any general definition of public authority or public action. The facts of each case decide the point."

¶41

The Court has dismissed these SLPs and held that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court is right in taking the view that Muthoot Finance Ltd. is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶42

We find that the petitioner has a dispute with the private housing finance company and no such statutory duty has been indicated to this Court which has been violated by the respondents no.2 and 3 for maintaining this writ petition.

¶43

This writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum.

¶44

September 22, 2025 mks

¶45

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶46

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shabina v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shabina v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Tahir Husain vs Uco Bank Zonal Office Lko. Thru. Manager and Another

Shailendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

C/M Pt. Rambali Mishra Shobharam Rashtriya Inter College Thru.Yogendra Pratap Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S Virendra Bahadur Singh Thru. Sole Proprietor Virendra Bahadur Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Satgur Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ramji Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax and 2 Others

Putan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others