Private credit information company not State under Article 12; RBI must invoke statutory dispute resolution for credit data disputes.
A private credit information company regulated under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 does not become a State or other authority under Article 12 merely because it is statutorily regulated, so no writ lies against it under Article 226 on that basis. However, disputes concerning the accuracy and storage of credit information fall within Section 18 of the Act, which requires resolution through conciliation or arbitration where no other remedy is provided. The Reserve Bank of India was therefore required to treat the application as a statutory reference and set the dispute-resolution mechanism in motion. The writ claim against the company failed, but relief was granted to the extent of directing consideration under the Act.
Issues: (i) Whether the credit information company was a State within Article 12 and amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. (ii) Whether the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to treat the petitioner's application as a reference under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and take steps for dispute resolution.
Issue (i): Whether the credit information company was a State within Article 12 and amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Analysis: The company was a private company registered under the Companies Act and only regulated by the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Regulation by statute did not make it a State or other authority within Article 12. On that footing, no writ could lie against it as a public authority merely because it maintained credit information records.
Conclusion: The company was not a State under Article 12 and was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Issue (ii): Whether the Reserve Bank of India was obliged to treat the petitioner's application as a reference under Section 18 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and take steps for dispute resolution.
Analysis: Section 18 provides that disputes between credit information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients, where no other remedy is provided, are to be settled by conciliation or arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the petitioner's grievance about the accuracy and storage of credit information fell within that mechanism, and the Reserve Bank ought to have acted on the application as a reference. Since no alternative remedy under the Act was shown, the statutory process had to be set in motion by the Reserve Bank.
Conclusion: The Reserve Bank of India was required to act on the application as a reference under Section 18 and take a decision in accordance with the Act.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of a direction to the Reserve Bank of India to consider the dispute under the statutory arbitration mechanism, while the writ claim against the credit information company itself failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A private credit information company regulated by statute does not become a State under Article 12, but a dispute covered by the special statutory reference mechanism must be dealt with under that mechanism when no other remedy is provided.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
