OD-3 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/837/2025 SUMIT BHANSALI VS UCO BANK AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date : 27th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. S. Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. T. Khandelwal, Adv. … for the petitioner. Mr. Shashwat Nayak, Adv. Ms. Antalina Guha, Adv. Ms. S. Ray, Adv. Ms. Harshita Purohit, Adv. …for the respondent. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for several reliefs but at the time of hearing, the petitioner has only pressed for prayer (f) which reads as follows: “A Writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to adhere and take action as per RBI and Bank’s directive and correct the wrong being done;” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court to the circular issued by the UCO bank, Recovery Department dated 27th July, 2021 and has relied upon clauses (iii) and (v) of the said circular. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the bank has not followed the circular by giving an opportunity to the petitioner for coming forward to settle loan amount instead, the bank has initiated proceeding 2 against the borrower under the SARFAESI Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made representation for giving benefit to the circular dated 27th July, 2021 but the bank has not considered the same. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the bank submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has suppressed various material facts. He also submits that the bank has initially issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and subsequently the bank has initiated proceeding before the DRT. The borrower has filed an appeal against the order of the DRT and the appellate tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the borrower. Being aggrieved with the said order, the borrower has preferred a civil revisional application and the said civil revisional application was also dismissed. He further submits that the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court in the present writ application. Learned Counsel for the bank further submits that the petitioner intent to take the benefit. The circular dated 27.07.2021 but the said circular is for the borrower. The petitioner is not the borrower and as such the petitioner cannot ask for any benefit with regard to the circular dated 27.07.2021. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials of record. As per clause (i) of the circular dated 27.07.2021, home loans and UCO property loan accounts under doubtful-ii, doubtful- iii and loss catagories of OLB up to Rs.5,00,000/- are covered irrespective of the amount or really sancationed to the borrower. Clause 3 (v) also provides that the branches will send written intimation to all eligible borrowers for availing these facilities detailing bank dues and the non-discretionary and non-discriminatory OTS amount in Annexure ‘A’ which will be treated as ‘in principal approval’ by the bank. 5. On complete reading of the said circular this Court finds that the circular is for the borrower. Borrower has not come with any request with the bank for giving any benefit to the circular dated 27.07.2021. The petitioner herein is only a guarantor. The bank has already initiated the proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the borrower and the same is pending before the Tribunal. 6. Considering the above, this Court finds that the writ petition is not maintainable. 7. WPO/837/2025 is dismissed. (KRISHNA RAO, J.) mg