2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 PETITIONER: SANTHA RAVEENDRAN PILLAI AGED 63 YEARS W/O. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, CHENGAZHASSERIL VALLAMKULAM P O, VALLAMKULAM THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689541 BY ADVS. A.D.SHAJAN SINDHU SANTHALINGAM JESSY S.SALIM RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 3 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION (D) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001 2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 2 4 M/S. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CSI BUILDING, FLOOR, M G ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED OFFICER, PIN – 695001 GP SMT VIYA KURIAKOSE SC SRI K M ANEESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 3 Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext.P1 lawyer notice issued by the 4th respondent bank. 2. The petitioner had availed an education loan from the 4th respondent bank for the higher studies of her son. Due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, she was unable to pay the installments on time. However, in due course of time, she has remitted the entire outstanding amount till 2023, except for Rs.20,000/-. Now, the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P1 lawyer notice, demanding Rs.2,74,100.50/-. The 4th respondent has charged an exorbitant rate of interest. Ext.P1 lawyer notice is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the 2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 4 petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent bank. 4. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent pertains to the rate of interest that has been charged by the 4th respondent bank in providing the education loan. 5. It is trite law that a scheduled Bank does not fall within the definition of 'State' or other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India [ Read the decision of this Court in Mathew Ignitious v. Catholic Syrian Bank (2019 (4) KLT 597)]. 6. The dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent has arisen out of a private contract executed between the parties. The Bank is not discharging any public duty in the matter. Therefore, I hold that the Bank is not amenable to the writ 2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 5 jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, by reserving the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies, in accordance with law. SD/- rmm4/4/2025 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE 2025:KER:29120 WP(C) NO. 12815 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12815/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT NOTICE DTD. 7/12/2024 SENT BY THE BANK’S LAWYER TO THE PETITIONER