Writ jurisdiction cannot enforce contractual lending disputes against a private asset reconstruction company absent a public duty.

A writ petition was held not maintainable against a private asset reconstruction company acting under a restructuring agreement, because no public duty or public function was shown in the lender-borrower dispute. The RBI moratorium circulars were treated as regulatory measures and did not, on the facts pleaded, convert the contractual controversy into an enforceable public law claim against the lender. The court also noted that questions on the moratorium's applicability, defaults, and contractual consequences depended on disputed facts and contractual rights, which were not suitable for writ adjudication. The challenge to the demand and enforcement notice therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition was maintainable to challenge a private lender's demand and enforcement notice arising out of a restructuring agreement, and whether the Reserve Bank of India moratorium circulars could be enforced in the writ jurisdiction against the private asset reconstruction company.

Analysis: The dispute arose from a private commercial lending relationship governed by the restructuring arrangement between the parties. The impugned communication was issued by a private asset reconstruction company exercising contractual rights under the loan and restructuring documents. Although writ jurisdiction can in appropriate cases extend to private bodies, that remedy is available only where a public duty or public function is shown. The court found no such public duty or public character in the lender-borrower dispute. The Reserve Bank of India circulars were regulatory in nature and did not, by themselves, convert the contractual controversy into a public law dispute or create an enforceable public duty on the lender in the facts pleaded. Questions about the applicability of the moratorium, the effect of defaults, and the contractual consequences would require adjudication of disputed facts and contractual rights, which was not appropriate in writ proceedings.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the impugned communication failed.

---