ORDER Common questions of fact and law are involved in these two writ petitions. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner in W.P.No.32886 of 2011 is a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director, G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy. The petitioner in W.P.No.33699 of 2011 is a Partnership Firm, represented by its Managing Partner, whose Managing Director is the same person, i.e. G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy. The 2nd respondent is common to both the writ petitions. Both the petitioners have their registered offices in the same premises at Bangalore. The petitioners had accounts in Nellore Branch of Indusind Bank, the 2nd respondent herein. The writ petitions are filed with a prayer to declare the action the 2nd respondent in transferring huge amounts from the accounts of the petitioners, viz. 0076-I43699-050 and 0076-I43390-050, respectively, in Nellore Branch of the 1st respondent, which, in turn, is impleaded as respondent No.2; without the signature of the authorized person as illegal, arbitrary and to direct the 2nd respondent to re-deposit the amount, which was illegally transferred. It is stated that G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy, i.e., the Managing Director and Managing Partner of the petitioners, is the authorized signatory in respect of both the accounts and that he met with a major accident on 01-02-2008 at Nellore. He is said to have gone into coma on account of multiple fractures, and that he was shifted to Apollo Hospital in Chennai on 02-02-2008, and that he was discharged only on 08-03-2008. The petitioners state that when G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy visited the 2nd respondent-Bank in June 2010, after recovery, he found that several amounts have been withdrawn from his accounts, though he did not issue any cheques or letters of authorization. It is stated that from the account of the Company nearly Rs.52 lakhs were withdrawn between 26-10-2007 and 19-07-2008 and about Rs.6 lakhs from the account of the Firm, between 27-03-2008 to 05-12-2008. It is stated that in spite of repeated reminders, the respondents did not take any action. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits and additional counter-affidavits are filed. Initially, an attempt was made to plead that the particulars furnished by the petitioners as to withdrawal are not correct. It is stated that in spite of repeated reminders, the respondents did not take any action. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavits and additional counter-affidavits are filed. Initially, an attempt was made to plead that the particulars furnished by the petitioners as to withdrawal are not correct. However, in the subsequent counter-affidavits, it is stated that the amounts were withdrawn from the accounts of the petitioners and credited to the accounts of various agencies on the instructions issued by the father of G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy. According to them, the withdrawals are made in good faith to help the functioning of the Company and the Firm. The respondents further plead that G. Venkata Jayakanth Reddy was very much aware of all these withdrawals and he acknowledged them in his correspondence with various agencies, such as A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, in the context of availing loans. They raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions. Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the 2nd respondent-Bank is governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for short ‘the Act’) and any steps taken by it contrary to the provisions thereof or the regulations made by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) while issuing licence under Section 24 of the Act, are amenable for rectification by this Court. He contends that the fundamental principle, which a bank is supposed to follow, is that the money from the account of a customer cannot be withdrawn, except through cheque or withdrawal slip and in exceptional cases, the specific letter of authorization of the account-holder, and that in the instant case, the money was withdrawn from the accounts in the absence of any such cheque, withdrawal slip or letter of authorization. He further submits that the respondents went on changing their stands from time to time, and ultimately, they admitted that the money was withdrawn without authorization, but sought to justify their action by pleading good faith. Sri V.V.S.N.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the subject-matter of the writ petitions is a commercial transaction and the writ petitions are not maintainable. He contends that the respondents are private banking companies and they cannot be brought into the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Sri V.V.S.N.Raju, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the subject-matter of the writ petitions is a commercial transaction and the writ petitions are not maintainable. He contends that the respondents are private banking companies and they cannot be brought into the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the amount was withdrawn on the instructions issued by the father of the account-holder and as a matter of fact, the benefit of payment of the amount to certain other agencies, was availed by the petitioners. Before the matter is dealt with on merits, the objection raised as to maintainability of the writ petitions, needs to be considered. It is no doubt true that the 1st respondent is a private bank not owned by the Government and the transactions undertaken by it do not partake the character of State administration. However, with the growth of administrative law and widening of the jurisdiction of the constitutional Courts, it is difficult to restrict the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to conventional writ petitions. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not only available for enforcement of the constitutional rights, but also the rights under a statute. Even where the violation of statutory provision is on the part of an otherwise private agency, writ petition can be maintained. The emphasis is to enforce statutory provisions and the focus is not upon the nature of the agency, against whom such enforcement is to be made. The 1st respondent is a bank and its functioning is governed by the provisions of the Act. It can function only on being granted licence under Section 22 thereof. The licence so granted by the Reserve Bank shall be subject to such conditions as may be imposed in that behalf. Section 22 enables the Reserve Bank to incorporate the conditions in the licence. It directs that the Reserve Bank may require the licenceee of the bank to conform to various norms that are stipulated under sub-section (3). These include the one which stipulates the manner in which the account of given customer must be handled, be it in the context of processing of the cheques, and crediting or debiting the amounts into account. It directs that the Reserve Bank may require the licenceee of the bank to conform to various norms that are stipulated under sub-section (3). These include the one which stipulates the manner in which the account of given customer must be handled, be it in the context of processing of the cheques, and crediting or debiting the amounts into account. Sub-section (3) (c) of Section 22 of the Act, mandates that the bank shall not take any steps, which are “prejudicial to the public interest or interest of its depositors.” The further details are supplemented through the regulations framed by the RBI. When the activity of the respondents is directly referable to a statute enacted by the Parliament and is subject to the licences issued by the RBI, a writ petition can certainly be maintained to enforce them. The only rider is that if there is any serious dispute as to the mutual liabilities of the parties, or on questions of fact, it must be left open to them to approach civil Court, where evidence can be adduced and findings can be recorded. In the instant case, the facts are not in dispute. The only controversy is as to whether the respondents were entitled to withdraw the amount from the accounts of the petitioners, in the absence of a cheque, withdrawal slip or letter of authorization. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is overruled. The petitioners had two separate accounts, in the 2nd respondent-bank. For both the accounts, G.Venkata Jayakanth Reddy was the authorized signatory. He sustained serious injuries in an accident and he was in hospital between 02.02.2008 and 08.03.2008. His condition was said to be critical and though he was discharged on 08.03.2008, he did not undertake any activity for quite a long time. It is stated that he visited the bank only in June 2010. However, it was found that substantial amounts were withdrawn before he being hospitalized and thereafter. Nearly Rs.52 lakhs between 26.10.2007 and 19.07.2008, and Rs.6 lakhs between 27-03-2008 to 05-12-2008 were withdrawn from one account or the other. It is important to note that these withdrawals are not supported by the cheques or withdrawal slips. The respondents do not dispute that such withdrawals were made. It is, however, sought to be justified by stating that the withdrawals are made on the basis of the instructions issued on behalf of the account- holder. It is important to note that these withdrawals are not supported by the cheques or withdrawal slips. The respondents do not dispute that such withdrawals were made. It is, however, sought to be justified by stating that the withdrawals are made on the basis of the instructions issued on behalf of the account- holder. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit, the plea of the respondents is as under: “…The money has been transferred as per instructions and for the benefit of the petitioner or father of the managing partner of the Petitioner, who was attending the business of the petitioner in the absence of Managing Partner, who met with an accident. And the Petitioner was and is aware of the same. Certain transactions were allowed as the Managing Partner of the Petitioner was in hospital and his father was in need of money for the hospital expenditure and for regular business dealings of the Petitioner and also one of the partner of partnership firm. The transactions were made in good faith for the smooth running of the business of the Petitioner. Hence, there is no lacuna nor any illegality has occurred in the transactions.” Let alone a banking company, even an ordinary trader cannot deal with the money entrusted to them by another, in this fashion. The standard practice, which is known to everyone who has acquaintance with the banking operations, is that a bank can permit withdrawal of money from the account of a customer, only through a negotiable instrument. Here again, there are restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank from time to time. In case the amount exceeds a particular figure, it cannot be paid to a bearer. If the payee under a cheque is a company or other registered organization, the requirement is that it must be “crossed”. While clearing the cheque, the concerned authority has to be satisfied about the genuinity of the signature of the account-holder. When such is the stringency of the procedure in the matter of withdrawal of money from an account, it is just un-understandable as to how the respondents have withdrawn such huge amounts from the accounts of the petitioners, without there being any cheque or specific order for this purpose. When such is the stringency of the procedure in the matter of withdrawal of money from an account, it is just un-understandable as to how the respondents have withdrawn such huge amounts from the accounts of the petitioners, without there being any cheque or specific order for this purpose. Howsoever proximate the relationship between the account-holder and his father may be, a bank cannot withdraw the amount from the accounts, on the strength of the oral instructions of the latter. When an oral instruction of an account-holder itself cannot be acted upon, the question of the instructions of a third party being respected, does not arise. An attempt is made to justify the payment of the amount to various authorities stating that the petitioners have acknowledged such payments. This is too specious plea to be accepted. When the complaint is about the very withdrawal of the amount from the accounts, the manner in which the money came to be dealt with, after withdrawal, hardly becomes of any relevance. Further, the matter needs to be examined strictly from the point of view of the operations in the bank, than the manner in which the amount, which is otherwise illegally withdrawn, has been spent. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to make good the amounts, which have been withdrawn from the accounts of the petitioners otherwise than through cheques or withdrawal slips or letters of authorization of the authorized signatory. It is, however, left open to the respondents to recover the amounts from the agencies to which they are said to have been paid. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall also stand disposed of.