118-CWP-15501-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15501-2026 Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Hemant Kumar Shahpuri ….Petitioner. Versus Reserve Bank of India and another ....Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jindal, Advocate, (through VC) and Mr. Simranjot Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2/SBI. ..… JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 (Parent Authority) to decide the representation filed by the petitioner dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) regarding the alleged malpractices committed by respondent No. 2 (Financial Institution) at its Yamuna Nagar Branch and also a further direction is sought for directing respondent No. 1 to initiate an appropriate action against respondent No. 2 for the alleged violation of the financial norms and guidelines issued by respondent No. 1 to safeguard the rights of borrowers. PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 118-CWP-15501-2026 -2- 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the illegalities being committed by respondent No.2/SBI, whereby the tenure of EMIs was extended, but the quantum of EMIs was not proportionately reduced. Learned counsel, with regard to the aforesaid grievance, submitted that the petitioner had also filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, before learned Consumer Forum and the same was already pending at the time of filing of present writ petition. In this regard, reference had been made to paragraph 12 of this petition. During the pendency of this petition, learned District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner but respondent No. 2/SBI assailed the said order of the Consumer Forum before learned State Commission which is still pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that now the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to seeking direction to Reserve Bank of India/respondent No. 1 to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) whereby the petitioner has highlighted various malpractices of respondent No. 2/SBI and that needs to be decided. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jindal, Advocate, appearing through video conferencing along with Mr. Simranjot Singh, who is appearing physically, submitted that once learned District Forum had already addressed the grievances of the petitioner by passing an order, during the pendency of this petition, then the present PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 118-CWP-15501-2026 -3- petition is not maintainable. By referring to the aforesaid representation dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) which was sent to respondent No. 1/ Reserve Bank of India and respondent No. 2/SBI, learned counsel submitted that the grievances raised by the petitioner are similar to ones as were raised before learned Consumer Forum. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. At the time of filing of the present petition, a consumer complaint had already been filed by the petitioner about which learned counsel for the petitioner had already disclosed in paragraph 12 of the petition. During the pendency of the petition, learned District Forum had already decided the complaint filed by the petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. 7. The basic grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the aforesaid fixation of EMIs based upon the tenure. Respondent No. 2/SBI has assailed the orders passed by the Consumer Forum before learned State Consumer Commission. 8. A perusal of Annexure P-9 dated 28.05.2025, in respect of which the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court, would show that in the “aforesaid representation, the petitioner has requested that” his loan installments and interest be calculated strictly as per the loan agreement since the Bank was compelling him to pay 444 installments instead of 240 installments which the Bank had no authority to do without his consent. PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 118-CWP-15501-2026 -4- 9. We are of the considered view that the petitioner cannot invoke two parallel jurisdictions. During the pendency of this petition, learned District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act 2019, has already decided the grievances raised by the petitioner and the petitioner had the opportunity to raise all the pleas, now sought, before the District Forum. Furthermore, the primary grievance of the petitioner remains the same. 10. In view of above, we are of the considered view that we cannot interfere in the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) 16.07.2026 JUDGE preeti i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No PREETI 2026.07.23 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document