LexStreakRead free →
Madras High Court· 29 July 2026

Should a High Court decide the disputed issues on merits where the writ petition is held not maintainable?

K. Karthikesan v. ICICI Bank Limited
2026:MHC:3140 · WA Nos. 3735 & 110 of 2025
Coram: Justice S.M.Subramaniam · Justice N.Senthilkumar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Article 226 of the Constitution …📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being the preliminary issue, factual findings on merits would potentially cause prejudice to the cases of the appellants in the event of approaching the forum having jurisdiction. If the writ is held as not maintainable, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in adjudicating the disputed issues on merits, and the appellants are at liberty to approach the competent forum, which may decide the issues independently on merits, in accordance with law and uninfluenced by orders passed in the writ petitions and writ appeals.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ against private sector bank — Public function test — Employer and employee dispute over payment of pension — Maintainability — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Private sector bank — No writ without statutory or public duty — Held: A writ does not lie against a private sector bank; mere regulation of banks by statutory bodies like RBI does not make such a bank discharge any public function or public duty. (¶2, 12) Constitution of India — Article 226 — Payment of pension — Contractual relationship not amenable to writ — Held further: A dispute between an employer and employee over payment of pension, the employer being a private company or bank, remains in the realm of contractual relationship and should be settled before an appropriate forum or Civil Court. (¶13) Constitution of India — Article 226 — Maintainability — Restraint in adjudicating issues on merits — Held further: Maintainability being the preliminary issue, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in adjudicating the disputed issues on merits, and the competent forum may decide the issues independently and uninfluenced. Writ appeals dismissed. (¶14, 16)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 14Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being the preliminary issue raised in the writ petitions, factual findings on merits, if any, would potentially cause prejudice to the cases of the Appellants in the event of approaching the forum having jurisdiction. If the writ is held as not maintainable, the High court is expected to exercise restraint in adjudicating the disputed issues on merits.
Paragraph 15In view of the legal position, this Court has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the appellants are at liberty to approach the competent forum for adjudication for redressal of their grievance. In the event of any such approach, the Court concerned may decide the issues independently on merits and in accordance with law and uninfluenced by orders passed in the writ petitions and writ appeals.
Acts & Sections
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaSection 5(c)(a) of the Banking Regulation ActRegulation 29 of the Pension RegulationsArticle 21 of the Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of K. Karthikesan v. ICICI Bank Limited — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does mere regulation by RBI make a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution maintainable against a private sector bank?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections