Writ jurisdiction against private lenders is unavailable for purely commercial lending disputes where SARFAESI provides the remedy.

Article 226 extends to private bodies only where the impugned action involves a public law element or discharge of a public or statutory duty. A private commercial lender issuing a loan in an ordinary lending transaction is not amenable to writ jurisdiction merely because it is regulated or has indirect governmental links. Where the dispute concerns secured lending, the SARFAESI Act supplies a complete statutory mechanism, including objections to notice, consideration of representation, and recourse to the Debt Recovery Tribunal after enforcement measures. The borrower must therefore pursue the statutory remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction against a private secured creditor.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, a public limited company and secured creditor, was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioners were required to pursue the remedy under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: Article 226 may be invoked not only against a State or authority within Article 12 but also against a body performing a public function or discharging a public duty. The decisive test is whether the impugned action lies in the realm of public law, not merely whether the entity is commercially regulated or has indirect governmental shareholding. The respondent was found to be a private commercial entity, not State-owned, not created by statute, not shown to discharge any public or statutory duty, and not engaged in any public function by issuing the loan in question. The dispute arose out of a commercial lending transaction. The Court also noted that the SARFAESI Act provides a complete statutory mechanism for a secured creditor's action and the borrower's remedy, including representation against notice under Section 13(2), consideration under Section 13(3A), and recourse to the Debt Recovery Tribunal upon measures under Section 13(4).

Conclusion: The respondent was held not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the petitioners were held bound to pursue remedies under the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ under Article 226 will not lie to enforce purely contractual or private law obligations against a private commercial entity that does not discharge a public or statutory duty, particularly where the statute governing the transaction provides an adequate alternate remedy.

---