JUDGMENT : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. Petitioner is a Society registered under the Travancore - Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 . The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman so far as it rejects the relief of getting back the pre-closure charges deposited by the Petitioner with the Respondent Bank, seeking direction to quash Ext.P3 imposing pre-closure charges of Rs.19,47,000/- and to repay the said amount to the Petitioner. 2. The Respondents have filed Counter Affidavit opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. The Petitioner has filed Reply Affidavit replying to the contentions raised in the Counter Affidavit. 3. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.A.Krishnan, and the learned Counsel for the Respondents, Sri. Sunil Shankar. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was sanctioned a loan of around Rs.15 Crores as per Exts.P2 & P2(a) loan sanction letters dated 18.04.2020 and 10.06.2020, but the Respondent Bank released only Rs.8.85 Crores to the Petitioner. The remaining sanctioned loan was not released to the Petitioner. The Respondents declined the same on the ground that the loans availed by the guarantors are outstanding. Since the Petitioner was in emergent need of money, the Petitioner availed a takeover loan from another Bank and paid the entire liability with the Respondents. When the Petitioner demanded the return of the original title documents deposited with the Respondents to create the mortgage to secure the loan availed by the Petitioner, the Respondents issued Ext.P3 dated 02.02.2022 demanding pre-closure charges at the rate of 3%, amounting to Rs.19.47 lakhs, and to clear the dues of the trustees of the Petitioner who have given personal guarantee for the loan to release the documents. Since the Petitioner wanted immediate release of the title deeds so as to deposit the same with the HDFC Bank from which the Petitioner availed the takeover loan, the Petitioner was compelled to pay the pre-closure charges on 08.02.2022 as per Ext.P3(a). Even thereafter, the Respondents refused to release the title deeds. The Petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman for redressal of its grievances, and the complaint was dismissed as per Ext.P4(a). The Petitioner filed two Writ Petitions before this Court challenging Ext.P4(a) Order and seeking direction to the Respondents to release the title deeds. Even thereafter, the Respondents refused to release the title deeds. The Petitioner approached the Banking Ombudsman for redressal of its grievances, and the complaint was dismissed as per Ext.P4(a). The Petitioner filed two Writ Petitions before this Court challenging Ext.P4(a) Order and seeking direction to the Respondents to release the title deeds. Both the Writ Petitions were disposed of on the same date as per Exts.P5 & P5(a). W.P.(C) No.17535/2022 filed by the Petitioner was allowed, setting aside Ext.P4(a) and directing the Banking Ombudsman to reconsider the complaint of the Petitioner. W.P.(C) No.4068/2022 was closed as per Ext.P5 Judgment, in view of Ext.P5(a) Judgment in W.P.(C) No.17535/2022. The Banking Ombudsman passed Ext.P6 Order, holding that the Petitioner should pay the pre-closure charges as per the agreed terms and conditions even though the enhancement of the loan had not been granted by the Bank and granting a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner for the delay in releasing the title deeds for morethan two years after the takeover of the loan. The Banking Ombudsman closed the complaint since the Respondent Bank complied with the advisory of the Banking Ombudsman on 05.07.2024 by making payment of the compensation and on the submission that the Bank will hand over the documents related to the original title deeds of the property to the owners of the property. It is submitted that subsequently, the Bank released the title deeds to the owners of the property. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there are reciprocal promises between the Petitioner and the Respondent Bank. By loan sanction letters, the Respondent assured that an amount of Rs.15 Crores would be released to the Petitioner as loan. The Petitioner availed the loan from the Respondent Bank on the assurance that the Petitioner would get loan of Rs.15 Crores. But the Bank released only Rs.8.85 Crores out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.15 Crores. Without complete disbursal of the loan of Rs.15 Crores, the Bank cannot insist on payment of the pre-closure charges. In other words,without fulfilling the obligations on the part of the Bank, the Bank cannot insist on discharging the obligations from the side of the Petitioner. The Banking Ombudsman entered a specific finding in Ext.P6 that the enhancement of the loan had not been made by the Bank. In other words,without fulfilling the obligations on the part of the Bank, the Bank cannot insist on discharging the obligations from the side of the Petitioner. The Banking Ombudsman entered a specific finding in Ext.P6 that the enhancement of the loan had not been made by the Bank. The dues from the Trustees of the Petitioner is not a ground for denying enhancement of the loan to the Petitioner. The Respondent Bank has illegally lifted the corporate veil of the Petitioner to find that there is liability on the part of its trustees. The Petitioner was compelled to avail a takeover loan on account of the default from the Respondent Bank to discharge its obligations by releasing the remaining sanctioned loan. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Sections 53 and 54 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 , to substantiate the point that when a contract consists of reciprocal promises, one of them cannot be performed or its performance cannot be claimed till the other has not been performed. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in Manohari R. v. Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Palakkad [ 2024 (7) KHC 528 (DB) ], Great India Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India and Another [ 2022 (2) KHC 584 ] and Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd. [ 2024 KHC 530 ] to substantiate the point that the Writ Petition is maintainable even in contractual matters. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the Respondent Bank, being a private Bank, does not come within the definition of State as held by this Court and the Apex Court, and hence the present Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Respondent Bank. The learned Counsel further contended that the parties are governed by the contractual terms. Ext.R2(a) is the loan sanction letter dated 12.10.2020. The amount of loan which is granted is only Rs.8.85 Crores. Admittedly, the Respondent Bank has released the entire amount of the sanctioned loan to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner requested for enhancement of the loan, the same was rejected by the Bank on account of the outstanding liability of the guarantors of the Petitioner. Ext.R2(a) contains specific clause with respect to pre- closure charges. Admittedly, the Respondent Bank has released the entire amount of the sanctioned loan to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner requested for enhancement of the loan, the same was rejected by the Bank on account of the outstanding liability of the guarantors of the Petitioner. Ext.R2(a) contains specific clause with respect to pre- closure charges. It provides for pre-closure charges for takeover loans by other Banks at 3%. There is no default on the part of the Respondent Bank with respect to the loan granted as per Ext.R2(a). When the Petitioner affects pre-closure of the loan granted by Ext.R2(a), the Petitioner is bound to pay the pre-closure charges. The Bank has complied with Ext.P6 Order of the Banking Ombudsman by making payment of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and has released the title documents to the Petitioner. There is no illegality in imposing pre-closure charges on the Petitioner and hence the relief sought for by the Petitioner could not be granted and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. 7. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging essentially the Order of the Banking Ombudsman. Banking Ombudsman is created as per the statutory scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India invoking its powers under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Section 45L of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 , and Section 18 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 , for resolving customer grievances. Hence, orders are passed by the Banking Ombudsman in the exercise of statutory power after adjudication. In such case, Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is perfectly maintainable to challenge the orders of the Banking Ombudsman and to give consequential reliefs. The Writ Petition could not be treated as a Writ Petition filed against the Respondent/Private Bank. Hence, I find that the Writ Petition is maintainable. 8. Regarding the challenge against Ext.P6 Order of the Banking Ombudsman, I find that there is no error of jurisdiction, arbitrariness or perversity in Ext.P6 Order. The parties are governed by the contract entered into between them. As per Ext.R2(a), the credit facilities renewed are for a total amount of Rs.8.85 Crores. The Respondent Bank has released the said amount fully. There is nothing to show that the sanctioned limit is for Rs.15 Crores as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The parties are governed by the contract entered into between them. As per Ext.R2(a), the credit facilities renewed are for a total amount of Rs.8.85 Crores. The Respondent Bank has released the said amount fully. There is nothing to show that the sanctioned limit is for Rs.15 Crores as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. There is nothing on record to show any assurance on the part of the Respondent Bank that the credit facilities would be enhanced to Rs.15 Crores. Thus, there is no reciprocal promise from the part of the Bank. The loan of Rs.8.85 Crores is governed by the terms of sanction in Ext.R2(a). Ext.R2(a) clearly provides for pre-closure charges @ 3% for takeover loans by other Banks. Ext.R2(a) sanction is accepted by the Petitioner and the Petitioner enjoyed the credit facilities as per the said sanction. In such case, the Respondent Bank is fully justified in demanding pre-closure charges from the Petitioner when the loan is taken over by another Bank. There is nothing to interfere with the Ext.P6 Order of the Banking Ombudsman. The Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.