-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 17 OF 2009 Shoaib alias Richie Sequeira ).. Petitioner Versus Union o f India and others ).. Respondents Petitioner present in person. Mr. S.M. Shah a/w Mr. G. Hariharan and Mr. P. Khosla for Respondent No.1. Ms. Kirtida Chandarana i/b Mahernosh Humranwala for Respondent No.2. Mr. N.S. Fadia for Respondent No.5. Ms. Aarti Banerjee i/b Little & Co. for Respondent No.8. Mr. Jatin Sanghavi i/b S. Ashwinikumar for Respondent No.15. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED: 2ND APRIL 2009 P.C. We have heard the Petitioner, who appears in person. There is a serious doubt whether the prayers made in the present Writ Petition can be granted by us in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The thrust of the submission is that for the recovery of loans due and payable to the Bank and Financial Institutions and even in relation to Non-Performance Assets, there should be proper guidelines and certain other incidental prayers are also made. The Petitioner submits that the Estimate Committee had made some observations which are not quite favourable to the working of the Debt -2- Recovery Tribunals and settlement of loans by the Financial Institutions. According to him, this needs to be done by a High Powered Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or of this High Court and uniformity in such matters need to be brought into force by issuance appropriate guidelines. The Petitioner has also raised certain questions and he prays that a mandamus be issued for answering these questions. 2. We are of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for in this Petition cannot be granted. In any case, the facts of the present case do not justify interference by us in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is at liberty to invoke the Right To Information Act or any other law as he may deem fit and proper. The suggestions made by him in the present Petition may be forwarded by him to the concerned Ministry which we do hope would receive proper attention. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.