11.09.2026 Court No. 236 Item No. 06 Sandip W.P.A. 28677 of 2023 Sri Mrinal Samanta Vs. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Anupam Hait …for the Petitioner. Mr. Debashis Saha, Mr. Avirup Ray Sanyal, Ms. Sucheta Pal, Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar … for the SBI. Mr. Arik Banerjee, Mr. Pujon Chatterjee …for the Respondent no. 6. 1. Affidavit-of-service, filed by the petitioner in Court today, is taken on record. 2. The petitioner intended to purchase a flat in a project, namely, “The Pyramid” at Narayanpur, Rajarhat, Gopalpur, Kolkata – 700136. The petitioner applied to the respondent bank for a housing loan and in this regard a tripartite agreement was executed between the respondent Bank, the developer and the petitioner on June 16, 2016. Subsequently, disputes cropped up between the parties, which compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has sought for the following reliefs:- “a) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus by directing and commanding the Respondents No. 2 and 3, subordinates and each one of them to show cause as to why the letter vide No RACPC/BID/21- 22/2045 dt. 11-08-2021 for the immediate submission of the original TITLE DEED of flat No 17-4/G in the project “THE PYRAMID” for the equitable mortgage failing which penal compounding interest @ 2% on the HBA and also again further such threating notice served to the petitioner on the same issue vide letter No. RACPC/BID/22-23/57 dt. 30-03-2022 be stayed or stopped. b) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus by directing and commanding the Respondents No. 2 and 3, subordinates and each one of them to show cause as to why the petitioner’s monetary rights, property rights, life and liberty should not to be protected and if no sufficient cause has been shown then directing the Respondents concerned to protect the petitioner’s rights as per Annexure P-23 and P-24 to their Writ Petition and make the rule absolute; c) A Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the RACPC, Bidhannagar, the Respondent No. 1 to make proper investigation of the association involved in the personnel of Bank who made approval of the housing project “THE PYRAMID’ as the SBI’s approved project and allured the petitioner to invest his hard-earned 2 money in the project which has no valid sanction plan for raising 10th storied building. d) A writ in the nature of Mandamus by directing and commanding the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to refund the entire money of 29,63,276/- (rupees twenty-nine lakhs sixty-three thousand two hundred seventy-six) as well as accrued interest @ 18% per annum to the petitioner. e) A writ in the nature of prohibition the Respondents No. 4 to 6 to not to dealt with further with the property in housing project “THE PYRAMID’. f) A Writ in the nature of certiorari by directing the Respondents concerned and each one of them to transmit and certify all the relevant papers and documents in connection of this case before this Hon’ble Court so that the conscionable justice may be rendered and/or administered.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6, at the threshold, raised the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that the dispute involved in the writ petition is a private dispute between the petitioner, the developer and the bank. He referred to the letter dated August 11, 2021 at page 172 of the writ petition, which was issued by the Chief Manager [Maintenance], RACPC Bidhannagar SBI to the petitioner whereby the bank requested him to submit the original title deed of mortgage in connection with Housing Loan Account No. – 35801716923. By the said 3 letter the bank informed the petitioner that the title deed of the property had not been submitted by him for creation of an equitable mortgage, which amounted to a violation of the agreement executed between the bank and the petitioner. 5. In reply, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on the point of maintainability, submitted that the Developer had adopted unfair trade practices to the extent that proper sanction for the building was not obtained and the bank, by suppressing vital information, approved the said project and sanctioned the housing loan in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that due to the misdeeds committed by the respondents, he was unable to submit the title deed within time to the Bank. 6. Heard the parties. 7. It appears that the dispute between the bank and the petitioner is private in nature and such dispute falls within the realm of private law and no public law element is involved herein. The writ petition also involves disputed questions of fact, particularly, the petitioner’s prayer seeking refund of Rs. 29,63,276/- from the bank, which cannot be decided in writ proceedings. 8. In M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd., reported in (2023) 2 SCC 703, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 77, inter alia, observed as follows: 4 “77. It is while dealing with the said case that this Court no doubt proceeds to, inter alia, lay down as following after adverting to ABL [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] also : (Joshi Technologies case [Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728] , SCC pp. 766-68, paras 69-70) “69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, “normally”, the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 5 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In 6 such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so : and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural 7 justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency 8 of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision-making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes.” 9. In Punjab National Bank vs. Atmanand Singh, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 256, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 22, inter alia, observed as follows: “22. We restate the above position that when the petition raises questions of fact of complex nature, such as in the present case, which may for their determination require oral and documentary evidence to be produced and proved by the party concerned and also because the relief sought is merely for ordering a refund of money, the High Court should be loath in entertaining such writ petition and instead must relegate the parties to 9 remedy of a civil suit. Had it been a case where material facts referred to in the writ petition are admitted facts or indisputable facts, the High Court may be justified in examining the claim of the writ petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law.” 10. The bank issued the letter for submission of the original title deed for mortgage on August 11, 2021 and the instant writ petition was affirmed on December 18, 2023, challenging the said letter dated August 11, 2021. Therefore, this writ petition also suffers from gross delay and laches. 11. On the issue of ‘delay and laches’ in writ proceedings, the Supreme Court, in Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768, had the occasion to observe: “56. “…… It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. 57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground for refusing to exercise such discretionary jurisdiction. The underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime .... 58. There is no upper limit and there is no lower limit as to when a person can approach a court. The question is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of facts before the court depending on and varying from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose. 59. We are in respectful agreement with the following observations of this Court in P.S. 10 Sadasivaswamy v. State of T.N. [(1975) 1 SCC 152 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 22] : (SCC p. 154, para 2) “2. … It is not that there is any period of limitation for the courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 12. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. 13. However, dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 11