$~200 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010490002026 + W.P.(C) 15025/2026 SHARAT FATIMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Sharma, Adv versus RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Adv Mr Dhaval Mehrotra and Adv. Ms Aditi Desai for R1 Mr Kush Sharma Standing Counsel with Ms Minakshi Branch Manager, Adv for R2 and 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 12.10.2026 1.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers :- “a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 (Reserve Bank of India) to examine, inquire into and take appropriate action in accordance with law against Respondent No. 2 for Non-Compliance of Guidelines of RBI, and failure of intemal grievance redressal mechanisms, in violation of applicable RBI guidelines; and/or b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to ensure that the Petitioner’s grievances are considered in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner,This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2026 at 09:25:40 after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing; and/or c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.1 to frame rules/guidelines/time limit to process the Top up loans for fair and transparent process; and/or d) To award appropriate and reasonable compensation to the Petitioner for the violation of fundamental rights Imder Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, caused by the continued failure of Respondent Nos. 1 to discharge their statutory supervisory duties, leaving the Petitioner remediless despite repeated representations. e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction directing the Respondent No. 1 to initiate appropriate proceedings against the Respondent No. 2 and 3 for their arbitrary and malicious conduct and abuse of power….” 2.
For the reasons stated in the petition, issue notice.
3. Mr. Mehrotra and Mr. Sharma, learned counsels, accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2-3 respectively and have argued the matter.
4. Mr. Kailash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that his only limited grievance is that the petitioner’s loan despite being sanctioned is not being disbursed.
5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Bank of Baroda along with the Manager of the said Bank i.e. respondent No. 3, states that the respondent No. 3 got a surprise check conducted with regard to whether the petitioner resides at the given address as part of pre-disbursement exercise but the petitioner was not found residing at the given address and the propertyThis is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2026 at 09:25:40 was instead occupied by a tenant. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, disputes the same.
6. However, I am of the view that the respondent No. 2 and 3 may conduct a surprise inspection again and if the petitioner is able to satisfy/meet the criteria of pre-disbursement for the loan, the loan be disbursed expeditiously and not later than 10 days from today.
7.
The allegations against the respondent No. 3 are not borne out from any documents on record and hence, the Court has not commented upon the same.
8. With these directions, the petition, along with any pending applications, is disposed of.
9. Dasti. JASMEET SINGH, J OCTOBER 12, 2026/NRThis is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/10/2026 at 09:25:40