AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
The present is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents: -
to supply the details of total amount paid by the petitioner i.e. principal as well as interest;
ii) to supply details of penal interest, cheque bouncing charges, cost and other charges to the petitioner without any delay;
iii) to give details of rate of interest being charged by the respondents.
iv) to consider and decide the application dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) sent by the petitioner by passing speaking and well reasoned order;
to waive off the extra charges/penalty etc. and grant some time to the petitioner to enable him to make arrangement of money and to clear the outstanding dues after selling the mortgaged property at his own level;
vi) to accept the default EMI of Rs. 9180/- and to accept the remaining EMIs regularly and
vii) to restrain the respondents from taking physical possession of mortgaged property and from alienating the mortgaged property in any manner.
Mr. D.S. Sarkaria, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Lupil Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the only prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to supply to the petitioner details of total amount to be paid by the petitioner, i.e. principal as well as interest to the respondent/NBFC. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to waive off the extra charges/penalty imposed upon the petitioner. A further prayer has also been made seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the defaulted EMI.
Mr. Arun William, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, submitted that respondent No. 1 has already accepted and processed the prayer made by the petitioner.
We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and on a query being put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as to how the present petition is maintainable against a Non Banking Financial Company which is a private company and that too for the aforesaid relief, learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court. The present case is not a case under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, but the petitioner had chosen to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Non Banking Financial Company, which is purely a private company, to supply the details of the principal and the interest amount.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S Shobha vs Muthoot Finance Ltd 2025 SCC Online SC 177, has observed as under: -
‘8. A body, public or private, should not be categorized as “amenable” or “not amenable” to writ jurisdiction. The most important and vital consideration should be the “function” test as regards the maintainability of a writ application. If a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned or connection with that duty or function, and limited to that, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9.We may sum up thus:
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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, nevertheless, there must be the public law element in such action.
(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.’
In view of above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed being not entertainable.