W.P.(C) 19041/2025 $~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19041/2025 DHEERAJ KUMAR BAJAJ .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate. versus DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ranjeev Khatana, SPC with Ms. Muskan Khatana, Advocate for R1. Ms. Akanksha Suman, GP for UOI. Mr. Sumit Sharma and Ms. Uma Gaur, Advocates for R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 16.12.2025 CM APPL. 79292/2025 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 19041/2025 3. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- <A) Writ of Mandamus directing the Reserve Bank of India to take necessary actions on Bank of Baroda for flouting its regulations in not providing the necessary documents to the Petitioner herein regarding the Ashray Loan of Ms. Meenakshi Bajaj i.e. mother of the Petitioner in addition to wilful non-compliance of the undertaking provided to the Banking Ombudsman which is categorically noted in the closure report dated 25.01.2024; and / or B) Writ of Mandamus directing the Bank of Baroda, Model Town Branch This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/12/2025 at 14:20:06 W.P.(C) 19041/2025 to release the certified copies of the Ashray Loan Document of Mrs. Meenakshi Bajaj and all relevant documents with respect to the said Ashray Loan to the Petitioner, being one of the Legal heirs of Mrs. Meenakshi Bajaj; and / or C) Costs in favour of the Petitioner in view of the continued harassment at the hands of the Respondent No. 3 & 4.= 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Ms. Meenakshi Bajaj sought a loan from Bank of Baroda, Model Town Branch, Delhi/Respondent No.4 in 2014 to maintain her property and basic living standards and for this purpose after availing the loan facility, she entered into a Baroda Ashray Loan Scheme with Respondent No.4. On 30.08.2018, Ms. Bajaj expired leaving behind three legal heirs, namely, Mr. Krishan Kumar Bajaj (Husband), Mr. Shellen Kumar Bajaj (Son) and Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Bajaj (Son/Petitioner herein). Sometimes in September, 2019, Respondent No.4 started making demands for repayment of the loan, which is when the Petitioner and other legal heirs learnt of the outstanding dues and approached the bank for providing details such as certified copy of Loan Agreement, updated account statement, KYC documents, sanctioned letters, internal communications, any insurance policy linked to the loan account etc., however, no details have been provided till date. Petitioner also preferred a complaint dated 27.09.2023 under 8The Reserve Bank of India-Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 20219 formulated by Ministry of Finance to simplify grievance redressal process. On 11.10. 2023, Respondent No.4 sent an e-mail to the collection agency to stop pursuing recovery of the loan as nothing was outstanding and also issued apology letter dated 12.10.2023. On 19.10.2023, Internal Ombudsman of the bank sent a response to Respondent No.1 stating that no amount was due from the Petitioner. 5. Petitioner states that after these communications numerous letters This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/12/2025 at 14:20:06 W.P.(C) 19041/2025 have been written to the bank to provide documents pertaining to the loan taken by Ms. Meenakshi Bajaj so that the status of repayment of loan is clear owing to a property legal batter ongoing between her surviving family members and while the bank has acknowledged that these documents can be furnished but till date they have not been given. Once again on 10.10.2024, father of the Petitioner sought copies of demand letters, insurance policy status, communications, details of outstanding amount, if any and also stated that as one of the legal heirs he was ready to provide Survivor Certificate and takes full responsibility to settle the dues, if any, towards the loan but again there has been no response. 6. Issue notice. 7. Counsels, as above, accept notice on behalf of the respective Respondents. 8. By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks a direction to Respondent No.4 to provide necessary documents pertaining to the Ashray Loan of his mother, in order to ascertain the status of outstanding dues, if any. Despite communications by the bank that there are no outstanding dues, till date the documents have not been given albeit in one of the communications, the bank has acknowledged that the documents can be provided to the legal heirs. Inaction of Respondent No.4 is not understandable. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No.4 to treat this writ petition as a representation and take a decision within three weeks from today, after looking into the averments made as also the documents appended thereto. Needless to state if the documents can be provided the needful shall be done. However, if for any reason, the decision is otherwise, a speaking order will be passed and communicated to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/12/2025 at 14:20:06 W.P.(C) 19041/2025 Petitioner within one week from the date of the decision and Petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to legal remedies, if so advised. JYOTI SINGH, J DECEMBER 16, 2025/YA This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/12/2025 at 14:20:06