$~196 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6818/2026 & CM APPL. 33550/2026 MANINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manohar Malik, Adv. and Ms. Astha Gumber, Adv. versus IDBI BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr Santosh Kumar Rout SC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 26.05.2026 CM APPL. 33551/2026 Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 6818/2026 1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- “a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned communication/ notice dated 29.04.2026 along with the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 01.04.2026 issued by the Respondent Bank for the purpose of fraud classification of the Petitioner, as the same are non-est, illegal, invalid and arbitrary. ...” 2. For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice. 3. Mr. Rout, learned standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and has also addressed some arguments. 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 01/06/2026 at 12:26:07 4. In the present case, the petitioner is a aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 29.04.2026 issued by the respondent bank which reads as under:- In the present case, the petitioner is a aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 29.04.2026 issued by the respondent bank which reads In the present case, the petitioner is a aggrieved by the impugned communication dated 29.04.2026 issued by the respondent bank which reads 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 01/06/2026 at 12:26:07 5. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, states t No. 2 of the impugned communication gives an impression that the respondent bank has already pre states that the petitioner has already replied to the show cause notice on merits. 6. I am of the notice and does not decide any substantial right of the petitioner so as to Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, states t No. 2 of the impugned communication gives an impression that the respondent bank has already pre-judged the issue in controversy. He further states that the petitioner has already replied to the show cause notice on I am of the view that the impugned communication is a show cause notice and does not decide any substantial right of the petitioner so as to Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the paragraph No. 2 of the impugned communication gives an impression that the judged the issue in controversy. He further states that the petitioner has already replied to the show cause notice on view that the impugned communication is a show cause notice and does not decide any substantial right of the petitioner so as to 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 01/06/2026 at 12:26:07 warrant interference of this Court at such a stage. 7. In view of the above, the respondent shall duly consider all the responses of the petitioner filed pursuant to the show cause notices including the submission that the petitioner was a non executive Director and only after taking into consideration all these responses, the respondent shall pass a speaking order. 8. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. JASMEET SINGH, J MAY 26, 2026/AS 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 01/06/2026 at 12:26:07