- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 10153 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI UMESH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O. LATE UMESH H.R., RESIDING AT NO. 812, 4TH T BLOCK, 37TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H R ANANTHAKRISHNA MURTHY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR SRI. GURURAGHAVENDRA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, NO.15, SUBBARAMACHETTY ROAD, NETKALLAPPA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. 2. THE INCHARGE OFFICER RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S SUDHARSHAN., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 BANK TO FURNISH THE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS PRAYED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER LETTER DATED 30.12.2019 ANNEXURE-E AND AS TWO LEGAL NOTICES SENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER ANNEXURES-E AND F RESPECTIVELY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent No.1 to furnish the document as sought for in terms of a letter dated 30.12.2019. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that her husband was a member of the respondent No.1, which is a Credit Co- operative Bank. She claims that her husband died. She received three notices from the respondent No.1, wherein it was mentioned that her husband had availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively and also that he executed a surety bond for a loan sanctioned to one Sri.A.Keshav. The petitioner claims that she addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 on 30.12.2019 seeking the documents pertaining to the above loans and the statement of account of the deceased husband commencing from 01.01.2008 to 30.12.2019. She contends that though the respondent No.1 received the letter dated 30.12.2019, it neither issued a reply nor furnished the documents. The petitioner therefore was constrained to cause a notice through an advocate, which was followed by repeated notices issued through the advocate. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 (ii) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 issued a demand notice dated 04.03.2015 demanding a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- with interest of Rs.39,70,874/-. She contends that her husband died on 22.08.2014 and therefore, the question of granting loan to a dead person did not arise. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued two notices dated 02.05.2020 to one Sri.Shripad, a copy of which was sent to the deceased husband of the petitioner, demanding repayment of Rs.18,62,488/- towards principal and interest of Rs. 28,52,728/-. She also received another notice dated 02.05.2020 demanding repayment of Rs.14,43,766/- and interest of Rs.27,77,682/-. This was followed by further notices of demand dated 20.02.2020. (iii) The petitioner again got a notice issued through her advocate calling for particulars and the documents relating to the loan allegedly raised by her husband. The petitioner contends that despite the repeated requests, the respondent No.1 has not furnished the information and the documents sought for. The petitioner is therefore before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that unless the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 furnished the documents, she would not be in a position to effectively reply to the notices. He also contends that the petitioner is unaware of the transactions brought about by her husband and therefore, it is incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to furnish the documents and the information sought for. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1, who contends that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the respondent No.1 is neither a state nor a instrumentality of the state or other authority. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1959' for short). The respondent No.1 claimed that it had extended a loan to one Sri.Aradhya T.H. and that the husband of the petitioner stood guarantee for the said loan. It also stated that the husband of the petitioner had availed financial accommodations from the respondent No.1 to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in loan account bearing No.102200023/2009 dated 16.03.2009, Rs.15,00,000/- in loan account bearing No.102200033/2009 dated 21.03.2009 and Rs.20,00,000/- in loan account No.SGR/MOR/294 dated 21.06.2011. In addition, it was mentioned that the husband of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 the petitioner stood guarantee for the loan sanctioned to one Sri.Aradhya.T.H. in loan account No.102200048/2009 dated 31.03.2009 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is contended that the respondent No.1 has initiated action against Sri.Aradhya.T.H. and the husband of the petitioner, now represented by the petitioner in case No.UBC-3/DIS/504/2023- 24. Therefore, it is contended that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 6. The respondent No.1 is a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. There is no pleading in the writ petition that the respondent No.1 receives any aid or grant from the State Government for it to qualify to be an authority of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the action of the respondent No.1 is not amenable for scrutiny by this Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, no relief can be granted to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32103 WP No. 10153 of 2020 the petitioner by directing the respondent No.1 to furnish the information/documents. 7. Be that as it may, now that the respondent No.1 has initiated action against the principal borrower, namely Sri.Aradhya.T.H., (now deceased) as well as the petitioner as a legal representative of Sri.Umesh.H.R., it is open for the petitioner to make a request before the concerned authority for furnishing the documents. If such a request is made, the concerned authority shall pass appropriate orders. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22