IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2169 OF 2009 (MS) Mohd. Yamin ………….Petitioner. Versus Indian Bank and another. …….Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he along with respondent no. 2 had jointly taken a loan from Indian Bank, Branch Civil Lines, Roorkee, District Haridwar for purchasing tractor and trolley. The contention of the petitioner is that he is regularly depositing his share of the loan and default if any, is on the part of respondent no. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is also innocuous. All the petitioner seeks is that he has made a representation before the concerned Branch of the Bank on 16.10.2009 and the concerned authority of the Bank may be directed to decide the same expeditiously. This is the sole prayer of the petitioner. This court refrains from saying anything on the merit of the case. Since the petitioner along with respondent no. 2 had admittedly taken the loan from the Bank and payment of which has not been made either by the petitioner or respondent no. 2, the bank is free to recover the said amount from the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2, under the provisions of law, which are 2 presently applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. However, since the prayer of the petitioner is innocuous, the respondent Bank is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, in case such a representation is pending before the Bank as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) 23.12.2009 Rathour