HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35537 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Jeetu Kumar Jaiswal, learned advocate holding brief of learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Abhishek Ahuja, learned counsel for respondent bank and Shri G.K. Srivastava, for Union of India. 2. Grievance is, petitioner's security documents have not been returned to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for bank contends that the petitioner had been issued notice to collect this documents. Delay has been caused by the petitioner. 4. In such facts, preliminary objection has been raised that petitioner has alternative remedy to approach the banking Ombudsman. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the records, factual dispute is involved as to who is responsible for the delay and also as to the computation of compensation. 6. In face of such factual dispute, interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is declined. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the banking Ombudsman for any surviving grievance. October 17, 2025 Nadeem Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Priyanka Tripathi, Vivek Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Abhishek Ahuja, G.K. Srivastava (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Ved Prakash .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And Another .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad