IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1654 (MS) of 2009 Shri Yogesh Pal …Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and another …Respondents Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the respondents. Dated: September 24, 2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of plot of land bearing Khasra No. 922/2, measuring 0.22 acre, situated in Mauja Majri Grant, Tehsil Rishikesh district Dehradun by virtue of sale deed dated 01.07.2000 duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar Rishikesh, executed by Sh. Karamjeet Singh and Anita Pal in favour of the petitioner. On 17.08.2005, the petitioner obtained Housing Loan from respondent no. 2. On 17.05.2007, a letter was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner by saying that his Housing Loan has been converted into Commercial Loan and the petitioner is liable to pay the interest which is payable as commercial loan instead of rate of interest of Housing Loan. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 30.05.2007 for treating the loan of the petitioner as Housing Loan and for taking interest by treating the same as Housing Loan. The respondent no. 2 sent a letter to the petitioner on 14.07.2007 for contacting him on any working day in connection with the aforesaid representation. The respondent no. 2 also sent a notice on 18.05.2009 for paying the entire loan amounting to Rs. 16,54,880/- (Sixteen lac fifty four thousand eight 2 hundred eighty) alongwith the interest. Thereafter, on 18.05.2009, the petitioner went to the respondent no. 2 and apprised him about the petitioner’s intention to deposit money towards the aforesaid loan. He also requested him to decide the aforesaid representation. But the respondent no. 2 did not permit the petitioner to deposit the intended amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not liable to make payment of interest by treating same as commercial loan whereas loan was taken by him as Housing Loan. He confined his prayer that he may be permitted to move a representation before the respondent no. 2 and his representation be decided within a reasonable time. Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents does not have any objection to this innocuous prayer. In view of the above, it is hereby directed that if 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 four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) VKG 24.09.2009