UKHC010032772018 2026:UHC:5195 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2006/2018 Ishaana Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltdd. --Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Gramin Bank --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Tushar Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate for the Bank. 2. Respondent No. 2 stood as guarantor in respect of loan taken by Mr. Manoj Punj from Uttarakhand Gramin Bank. 3. Petitioner claims to be lessee in respect of secured asset owned by the guarantor (respondent No. 2). 4. Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1505 of 2018, challenging letter issued by the Bank asking him to vacate the secured asset. The said writ petition was dismissed with liberty to make representation before the concerned authority. Petitioner made representation in terms of that order which has been rejected vide order dated UKHC010032772018 2026:UHC:5195 19.06.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follow: “i) Pass a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter dated 19.06.2018 (contained as Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 06.06.2018. ii) Pass a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 bank to grant 06 months time to the petitioner to vacate the property in question more particularly known as G/86, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Selaqui, District Dehradun in terms of the provisions contained under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that petitioner sought a relief in prayer No. 2 that he be given 6 months time to vacate the property in question. He submits that writ petition was filed in July, 2018 and nearly 8 years have gone by, thus he submits that writ petition has become infructuous, as the period for which petitioner had sought protection has came to an end long back. 7. He further submits that since lease was UKHC010032772018 2026:UHC:5195 executed in favour of the petitioner after respondent No. 2 entered into a contract with the Bank, therefore petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right to maintain this writ petition. 8. This Court finds substance in the said contention. 9. The relief cannot be granted at this belated stage. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 30.06.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b0892 3c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4B ABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.07.01 10:18:35 +05'30'