← Library
Madras High CourtWP/21430/2025dismissed

P.Munisamy v. The Secretary

2025-08-20Honourable Mr Justice N. Anand Venkatesh6 pages

1/6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-08-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH P.Munisamy Petitioner(s) .Vs.

1. The Secretary Union Government of India Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building, Sandad Marg, New Delhi-110 001.

2.The Commissioner The Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue 12th Main Road, L Block, Kurinji Colony, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.

3.The Chief Executive Officer National Housing Bank, Unit No.716A, 7th Floor , Phase II, Office Lobby, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.

2/6 4.The Managing Director Edel Weiss, (NDO), No.19, Kochar Tower, 7th and 8th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

5.The Branch Manager Edel Weiss Housing Finance Ltd, No.620/ 6, Chittoor Bus Stop, (MRF Tyres Building) Vellore- 632 007.

Respondent(s) (R1 & R2 are deleted from the array of parties vide order Dated 17.06.2025 made in WP.No.21430/2025) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents , in Particular 3rd respondent to take necessary action based on the petitioner's representation dated 12.05.2025.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.Saravana Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Balasubramani for R3

3/6

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to act upon the representation made by the petitioner on 12.5.2025, wherein the petitioner is requesting the 5th respondent bank to accept the one time settlement offered by the petitioner. 2.In the considered view of this Court, the present writ petition is not maintainable since the effective relief has been sought for only against the private bank. The Apex Court in recent decision in S.Shobha .vs. Muthoot Finance Limited reported in 2025 4 CTC 327 made it very clear that a writ petition cannot be maintained as against a private bank since they do not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Specific reliance can be placed on paragraph 9 of the said judgement. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction has been sought for against the 3rd respondent who is the controlling authority of the 5th respondent bank. The above submission made by the learned counsel

4/6 for the petitioner is liable to be rejected by this Court. It is for the 5th respondent bank to take a decision as to whether the OTS proposal given by the petitioner has to be accepted. The 3rd respondent will not have any role to play in such a decision taken by the 5th respondent. Therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived. The relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 20-08-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes KP

5/6 To 1.The Chief Executive Officer National Housing Bank, Unit No.716A, 7th Floor , Phase II, Office Lobby, Spencer Plaza, 769, Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.

2.The Managing Director Edel Weiss, (NDO), No.19, Kochar Tower, 7th and 8th Floor, Venkatnarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

3.The Branch Manager Edel Weiss Housing Finance Ltd, No.620/ 6, Chittoor Bus Stop, (MRF Tyres Building) Vellore- 632 007.

6/6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

KP 20-08-2025