Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to seek loan waiver or extension of repayment schedules absent legal or fundamental right infringement.

The petitioner, Suman Kumar, availed an education loan but defaulted on repayments due to his inability to secure employment

He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking reliefs including a one-time settlement (OTS), a five-year extension for repayment, or a partial waiver of the originally due amount in Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs)

During the proceedings, it was noted that the original respondent bank had merged into the Bihar Gramin Bank

Whether a Writ of Mandamus can be issued under Article 226 to direct a bank to grant loan waivers or extensions in the absence of a violation of legal or fundamental rights

principles governing the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

For a writ petition to be maintainable, there must be an infringement of a legal or fundamental right or a violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court observed that the petitioner’s inability to repay the loan was a personal financial grievance rather than a legal wrong committed by the State or the bank.

Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate any breach of statutory duty, violation of natural justice, or infringement of a specific legal right by the respondents, the Court determined that it could not entertain the petition under its writ jurisdiction

the Regional Manager of the Bihar Gramin Bank is the competent authority to consider requests on sympathetic grounds

The Court directed the concerned authority to pass an appropriate order on the said representation within three months of its filing

The writ petition was disposed of with these observations