2026:UHC:1856 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.458 of 2026 18th March, 2026 Bipin Chandra Chaudhary ………..Petitioner Versus Chief General Manager and another ……..Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has been filed by the petitioner who is a partner of a Firm-M/s Yogesha and Yaars Construction of 10% share, stating that there was some loan against the Firm which was repaid by the Firm on 29.12.2025. 2. The petitioner was the Guarantor of the aforesaid loan and title deeds of two buildings belonging to the petitioner were deposited as collateral security by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent was granted two weeks’ time to get instructions in the matter as to why, despite repayment of the loan amount by the Firm, the collateral security title deeds of the two buildings have not been released in favour of the petitioner. 4. Today, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although repayment of the loan has been paid by the Firm, in which the petitioner stood as a Guarantor and deposited the collateral security title deeds of his two buildings. 1 2026:UHC:1856 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, that there are certain internal transactions between the Firm-M/s Yogesha and Yaars Construction and Firm-M/s Yogesha and Yaars Liquor and that account is a N.P.A. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a separate Firm, therefore, this ground is not available to the respondent to withhold the collateral security title deeds. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that representation of the petitioner is pending with respondent no.2-Branch Manager, Branch Almora, District-Almora, which is annexed as annexure no.5 to the writ petition, and ends of justice would met if this Court would direct respondent no.2 to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a stipulated time. 8. This proposal offered by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents. 9. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed of and it is provided that the representation, annexure no.5, to the writ petition filed by the petitioner before respondent no.2 dated 02.01.2026 shall be decided by respondent no.2- Branch Manager/Authorized Officer, within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by a speaking order, strictly, in accordance with law. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.03.2026 SK 2