SL. No Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 2 4 .0 4 .2 026 WPSB No. 341 of 2023 Th e Ku r m an ch al Nagar Sah k ar i Ban k Lt d. .....Pet it ion er Vs. St at e of Ut t ar ak h an d & ot h er s ....Respon den t s Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J. Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. 1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner- review applicant. 2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 3. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that this Court while deciding the writ petition has misread the letters submitted by respondent no.3 tendering resignation and which has resulted in the observation that respondent no.3 has nowhere stated that she intended to resign. It is further contended that the order, by which, the Board of the Bank accepted the resignation was subjected to challenge by respondent no.3 in Writ Petition (S/ B) No.461 of 2021, which was dismissed by order dated 01.08.2022 on the ground of maintainability. Respondent no.3, thereafter, did not challenge the order of the Board accepting the resignation. Respondent no.2, however, wrongly assumed jurisdiction on basis of a private complaint by some advocate and acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, reviewing the decision taken by the Board of Directors. 6. Having regard to the submissions made and after going through the judgment and order under review, we feel that a case is made out for admitting the review application. 7. Accordingly, review application (MCC No.10 of 2025) is admitted. 8. List the review application for hearing after four weeks. 9. Meanwhile, the contempt proceedings initiated by respondent no.3 in respect of the order of this Court dated 24.07.2025 shall remain in abeyance. Respondent no.2 is also restrained from taking any action in pursuance of the order under review. 10. On the request made by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3, we require respondent no.2 to place the original record before us on the date fixed for hearing of the review application. ( Ash ish Nait h an i, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Gu pt a, C.J.) 24.04.2026 24.04.2026 NI SHANT