S. No. 116 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) No. 2288/2024 Shameema Begum …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Parviz Lone, Advocate Mr. I.N. Parray, Advocate Vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Owais Geelani, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 25.07.2025 Petitioner’s husband, after availing loan from J&K Bank, died without liquidating it. Petitioner herein, surviving on the family pension, submits that she is unable to repay outstanding loan and has filed this petition for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to waive off the outstanding loan amount under exceptional circumstances or in alternative, direct the respondent-bank to liquidate the outstanding loan through available Government/Bank Schemes and in addition thereof, direct respondent-bank to pay compensation to petitioner for emotional distress, mental suffering and embarrassment caused by the actions of respondents. It is submitted that action for recovery of the outstanding amount is being contemplated by the respondents as they have approached District Court, Ganderbal, for the recovery of the said amount. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he is unaware whether the bank has initiated recovery proceedings or not and if so, how the relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted. The counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had approached respondent-bank with an application requesting them for liquidation of outstanding loans under various Government Insurance Schemes, including Pradahan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana, or any other insurance policy which might have been taken as a financial protection that covers borrowers against sudden life events and if borrower is unable to repay the loan due to -2- such events, the policy pays the outstanding balance and, therefore the family is not burdened of loan payment. How this petition, challenging action contemplated to be taken by respondent-bank and directing them to waive off loan, is maintainable; when asked to counsel for petitioner, he could not show any provision, scheme or law which invests this Court with such power under and in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ in the name of respondent-bank. Thus, this petition is hopelessly without any merit and misconceived, therefore, dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has made a representation to the respondent-bank. If any, such a representation is made by petitioner, respondent-BANK may consider it on its own merits and strictly in accordance with any scheme, provisions of law and rules applicable. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.07.2025 Shabroz