ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging an order of the

4th respondent, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent and that of the

1st respondent rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

2. At the outset, the claim of the writ petitioner is pursuant to a contractual obligation, which could not be decided in this proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent on 25.11.2010, rejecting his request in respect of penal interest charged by it. The same was challenged by the petitioner before the Banking Ombudsman, namely the 3rd respondent herein, which had found that there is no grounds made out in the complaint as referred in clause 8 of the said scheme. Against which, the petitioner had also been approached the 4th respondent, which had rejected on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable as per clause 13 (a) of the scheme. However, the liberty was given to the petitioner to approach any other grievance redressal authority in accordance with law and the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition.

3. As stated supra, this Court cannot delve into a dispute that arises out of a contractual