HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2079 of 2009 (M/S) Sh. Yogesh Pal …. Petitioner .. Versus Punjab National Bank & another … Respondents Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents. 21st December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). Admittedly the petitioner had taken a loan from the Punjab National Bank, Branch Paltan Bazar, Dehradun for a total amount of Rs. 12.5 lakhs. The contention of the petitioner is that the said loan was a housing loan and an interest of 9.5 % per annum was chargeable, however, the respondents are now charging the interest of 14 % treating it to be an ordinary commercial loan. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No. 1654 (M/S) of 2009 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 24.9.2009 directing that in case the petitioner moves a representation before the respondents within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be decided by the respondents within one month from the date of receipt of such representation. However, the present writ petition has been filed in which the petitioner states that though the petitioner has moved a representation before the bank in compliance of the order of this Court, the impugned order has been passed by the Branch Manager of the bank saying that the orders of the 2 Hon’ble Court was to move such a representation within three weeks which would be by 15th October, 2009 and since this representation has been received by them on 4th November, 2009 which is after the expiry of the period of one month no action can be taken on such a representation. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondent bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Neeraj Garg states that there is no need to file rejoinder affidavit. This writ petition is being presently decided by consent of both the parties in the following manner. Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the bank has quite fairly stated before this Court that the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 24.9.2009 are in fact liable to be complied with and certainly not in the manner in which it has been done wherein the controversy has not been decided by the bank although such direction was made by this Court, even though the representation was made belatedly. He, therefore, states that in case the petitioner makes a representation within one week from today with the certified copy of this order i.e. on or before 30.12.2009, the bank shall take a decision as expeditiously as possible. He also assures this Court that till a decision is taken on the matter by the bank, no coercive measures shall be initiated by the bank against the petitioner. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.12.2009 Avneet