2026:UHC:3863 S L. N o. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PMS/ 1 3 9 7 / 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. P.S. Dhami, learned counsel for the petitioner (appeared through V.C.). 2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by a notice issued by Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, whereby he was called upon to deposit Rs.27,485/ - plus interest as early as possible, failing which his loan account shall be declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). 4. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows: - “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other suitable writ, order, or direction, calling for the records from the respondent Bank and quashing the arbitrary declaration of the petitioner’s loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), along with the consequential notices dated 13.03.2026 and other notices annexed as Annexure-01 (Colly)-(Started from Page no.13 to 17). (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction, commanding the Respondent Bank to forthwith release the petitioner’s loan account to the status of Standard/ Performing Asset, and permit the Petitioner to continue repayment of EMIs without coercive or stigmatizing measures. (iii) Direct the Respondent Bank to withdraw the coercive threats contained in the impugned notices, including recovery expenses, publication of the Petitioner’s name in local newspapers, and record on the official website, which are arbitrary and violative of the Petitioner’s dignity. (iv) Award costs of the petition, including legal expenses incurred by the Petitioner, as the Respondent Bank’s arbitrary action has compelled the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court.” 2026:UHC:3863 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that recovery proceedings have not been initiated in the present writ petition, and petitioner was simply asked to regularize the installments regarding the loan amount. 6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter, as petitioner has simply been asked to deposit a certain amount. Instead of depositing that amount, petitioner has approached this Court. Thus, there is no scope for interference, and the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach Manager of the concerned Bank by making a representation, and if he makes such representation highlighting his grievances, a decision thereupon shall be taken as per law within two weeks from the date of presentation of the representation. ( Manoj Kum ar Tiw ar i, J.) 19.05.2026 AK 2026:UHC:3863