07.09.2026 Ct. no.7 M/L.23 Samarpita IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION (Appellate Side) WPA 21127 of 2026 Wasist Kumar & Anr. Vs. Svatantra Micro Housing Finance Corporation Limited & Ors. Mr. Anindya Bose, Mr. Santanu Maji, Mr. Subhayu Das, Ms. Debrani Mondal, Ms. Raina Das, Mr. Chandan Das, Mr. Bapi Ghosh … for the Petitioners Mr. Soumya Sarkar, Mr. Munshi Aiyaan Rahim ..for the Respondent No.1 1. The petitioner complains of arbitrariness on the part of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 in retaining physical possession of the petitioners’ residential premises despite withdrawing an earlier demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 and possession notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act. 2. Mr. Anindya Bose, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have no authority to retain possession of the 2 property of the petitioner once they have withdrawn the notices issued under the 2002 Act. 3. He relies on a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. Sagar Thomas reported at (2003) 10 SCC 733, in support of his contention that since the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are discharging public function under the 2002 Act, this petition should be entertained. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondents submits that a sum in excess of Rs. 36,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakh only) is due and owing from the petitioner and that the respondents are simply seeking to enforce their security interest. 5. The writ petitioner’s case is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2, are in illegal possession of the relevant property. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are private entitles. A writ Court would not be the proper Court to be approached if a person is wronged by a private person who does not answer the definition of a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 6. The private respondents had earlier initiated SARFAESI proceedings and taken possession of the petitioners’ property but they subsequently, withdrew the notice and have now issued a fresh notice. 7. Retention of possession by the private respondents would not attract the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 3 8. The order dated June 23, 2026, passed by this Court earlier granted liberty to the said respondents to withdraw the possession notice and issue fresh notice to recover their dues. Neither the notice was quashed nor was any direction to handover possession of the property was granted. 9. The judgment in the case of Federal Bank (supra) does not aid the petitioner inasmuch as the private respondents are not discharging any public function. 10. The 2002 Act does not contemplate discharging of any public function. It provides a mechanism for recovery of debt by eligible Banks, Financial Institutions and other entities including Asset Reconstruction Companies through enforcement of security interest without intervention of Courts. Private lenders enforcing security interest for recovering debts due to them cannot be said to be discharging public functions. 11. This writ petition, therefore, cannot be entertained against a private entity in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. reported at (2022) 5 SCC 345. 12. Furthermore, if it is the petitioners’ case that the writ Court should intervene since the respondents have not acted in terms of the 2002 Act, the 4 petitioners can approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well for the same reason. 13. The petitioner, is thus, not remediless. If the private respondent has taken or retained possession merely after issuing notice under Section 13(2) but without issuing fresh notice under Section 13(4) of the 2002 Act or conversely after withdrawal of the earlier possession notice and without issuing a fresh possession notice, then also petitioner can certainly approach the appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 14. Accordingly, WPA 21127 of 2026 stands disposed of leaving the petitioner free to approach appropriate forum, in accordance with law. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)