HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 33300 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shivam Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief : "(a) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.4 not to merge personal loan and credit loan of petitioner no.1 in the Home Loan Account of petitioners and further be directed to receive installment of Home Loan of the petitioners separately to the personal loan and credit loan for the month of August and September, 2025. (b) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take possession and auction/sale the mortgage residential house of the petitioners pursuant to personal loan and credit loan merge in home loan. (c) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to police of police station Raipurwa/respondent no.5 not to harass/take any coercive measure pursuant to order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar against the mortgage property of the petitioners in the H.D.F.C. Bank/respondent no.4." 3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ramesh Kumar Shukla Shrangi Tandon And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) for the Bank/respondent no.4 to the effect that the said respondent namely HDFC Bank Limited is not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Also, it has been pointed out that the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In that order has been passed under Section 14 of that Act on 24.06.2025. Therefore, grievance, if any being raised by the petitioners will be dealt with before appropriate statutory forum. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, respondent no.4 being a banking company, the present writ petition is therefore maintainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is beyond doubt that no writ petition may lie against a corporation unless it falls within the meaning of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. No fact pleading exists to establish that respondent no.4 is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Also, for reason of order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, we are not inclined to offer any interference in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail their remedy in accordance with law. October 6, 2025 Abhilash WRIC No. 33300 of 2025 2 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad