Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29095-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4578 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Vibhor Mahendru Respondent :- The Branch Manager Bank Of Maharastra Lko. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Srivastava,Amita Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Praveen Dwivedi Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby the impugned letter dated 18.01.2025, written by the respondent no.1, to the petitioner contained in Annexure A-1, is quashed. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari whereby the communication through email dated 04.04.2025, from the Banking Ombudsman, Respondent no 5, contained in Annexure A-2, is quashed. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2, to provide to the petitioner the documents demanded by him in paragraph 5, of his letter dated 31 12.2024, written to the respondent wwehrло. 1, pertaining to the responsibility of the petitioner as the then Director of the Company, respondent no 6. iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 and 2, to revoke the Guarantee given by the petitioner in respect of term loan-1 and term loan-2, disbursed by the respondent bank when the petitioner was a Director of the company, respondent no.6." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts the fact that he was earlier a Director of respondent no.6- a Private Limited Company. Some loan had been taken by the Company when the petitioner was its Director. The loan was taken from opposite party no.4- Bank of Maharashtra. Petitioner is a guarantor of the said loan. He made a complaint that loan is being misused by the Company, therefore, he be relieved of his liability as a guarantor. The petitioner claims to have resigned from directorship of the Company. As per the communication dated 18.01.2025 by the Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Aliganj Branch, he has declined to accede to the request for detailed reason mentioned therein. The petitioner, as informed by the petitioner's counsel, was also a borrower apart from being a guarantor and he insists on this fact. Though the counsel for the Bank states that the petitioner was only a guarantor. The petitioner then approached the Ombudsman who has declined to interfere on the ground that the matter involves commercial judgment/ decision of a regulated entity, therefore it is not amenable to his jurisdiction. 4. We are of the view that such a matter cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, if he has a cause, may avail other remedies, whether before civil court or any other forum, as per law. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.)(Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench