27.08.2026 Item No. 12. Court No.22. AB W.P.A. 25464 of 2025 Amal Kumar Koyal Vs The Reserve Bank of India & Others Mr. Prasad Bhattacharyya ….for the Petitioner. Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar ……for the Respondent Nos.2-4. 1. The petitioner is represented. The respondent nos.2 to 4 are represented. The respondent no.1 is not represented. The petitioner does not have an affidavit of service today. However, he says that he is not pressing for any order against the respondent no.1. 2. The petitioner’s case is that he had taken a home entity loan of Rs.51 Lac from the respondent no.2. At the time of taking the loan, the petitioner was told that the interest which will be payable in respect of such loan would be 11.6% p.a. 3. The petitioner further submits that he has been making payments in the form of EMIs on a regular basis to the respondent no.2. However, subsequently, while making payment of the aforesaid EMIs, the petitioner has come to learn that the rate of interest which has been charged on him, increased from 11.6% p.a. to 14.95% p.a. 2 4. The petitioner submits that such increase in interest rate was done unilaterally and without any intimation to him. He further contends that no consent was given by him for such increase in the interest amount. By an email dated April 30, 2024, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to recalculate the amount of interest which had already been charged in respect of the aforesaid loan as per the sanctioned rate of 11.6% p.a. and adjust the excess amount against his principal amount and continue to charge interest at the sanctioned rate. 5. By an email dated May 20, 2024, the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that his loan was not a housing loan, but in fact it was a home entity loan (mortgage loan). The email also states that the loan was sanctioned at 11.60% interest p.a. and the current rate of interest being charged was 14.95% p.a. Such calculations are correct and there is no discrepancy. The aforesaid stand of the respondent no.2 was also reiterated on July 12, 2024, by the Customer Relation Officer of the respondent no.2. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Reserve Bank of India and sought redressal of his grievance against the respondent no.2. However, the Reserve Bank of India, vide its letter dated 3 December 13, 2024, informed the petitioner that his complaint was not within the regulatory purview of the Reserve Bank of India and consequently, the Reserve Bank of India was constrained to classify the petitioner’s complaint as not maintainable and closed the same. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner, by his letter dated September 22, 2025, requested the respondent no.4 to, inter alia, reconsider his case. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that he prays for an order directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 to consider the aforesaid representation dated September 22, 2025. 9. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the rate of interest which was levied on the petitioner was a floating rate and was dependent on the LHPLR (LIC Housing Prime Lending Rate). Learned Advocate representing the respondent nos.2 to 4 refers to the sanctioned letter dated September 28, 2016, wherefrom it will be evident that the PLR of such date was 14.20% p.a. and the rate of interest which was being levied on the petitioner was 11.6% p.a. and rebate of 2.6% had been granted to the petitioner. 10. Learned advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4 further submits that from time to time, the aforesaid LHPLR has increased and consequently, 4 the rate of interest being charged on the petitioner has also increased. He submits that there has been no lacuna or fault on its part and all actions have been taken in accordance with law and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. 11. Learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 to 4 further submits that the petitioner was informed, from time to time, by SMS of the increased rates of interest which were being levied on the petitioner by the respondent no.2 and the same have been disclosed by the petitioner at pages 24 and 26 of the writ petition. 12. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and seen the materials on record. It appears to me that there has been no wrong doing on the part of the respondent nos.2 to 4 in charging increased rate of interest on the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has been a longstanding client of the respondent no.4, I deem it fit, in the interest of justice, to direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner to it on September 22, 2025, and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks from date by a speaking order in accordance with law and without being influenced 5 by the observations contained in this order. This order will not prevent the respondent no. 2 from recovering and/or claiming whatever it is entitled to, as on date, from the petitioner. 13. This writ petition stands disposed of. 14. Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents. 15. No order as to costs. 16. All parties shall act in terms of a server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Rishad Medora, J.) 6