IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.10.2025 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI M.Jothibass ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India Fort Glacis Chennai-600 001.

2.The Chief Manager State Bank of India Panruti Branch-2251 Vasantham Complex No.74 A, Kumbakonam Road Panruti, Cuddalore-607 106. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take suitable legal action against the Chief Manger and other officials of the second respondent bank those who are responsible to sell the petitioner’s jewels prior to the cutoff date by considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy For Respondents : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for R-2

O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to considering the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2025 and to take suitable legal action against the Chief Manger and other officials of the second respondent bank for selling the jewels pledged by the petitioner prior to cut off date.

2. Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had availed gold loan from the 2nd respondent bank for a sum of Rs.68,000/- in the year 2011. Due to default in re- payment of the said loan amount, the bank manager of the 2nd respondent bank had sent a letter dated 01.09.2014 calling upon the petitioner to settle the entire loan amount. Though the petitioner had sought for one-time settlement vide his reply dated 10.09.2014 however, without considering the same, the petitioner was issued with another letter dated 10.11.2014 stating that if the petitioner fails to repay the loan amount on or before 01.12.2014 legal action will be taken against the petitioner. When the petitioner had approached the bank on 28.11.2014 for payment of the loan amount, he was informed that the jewels pledged by him at the time of availing the loan had already been sold which is beyond the cut off date fixed by the bank for payment of the loan amount. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.07.2025 before the 1st respondent requesting to take legal action against the officials of the 2nd respondent bank for selling the petitioner’s jewels prior to the cutoff date. However, the same has not been considered so far. Hence, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it would suffice if this Court issues a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2025 and pass appropriate orders on the same within the time that may be stipulated by this Court.

5. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner had availed gold loan from the 2nd respondent bank by pledging the jewels in the year 2011 and had defaulted in repaying the said loan, which had resulted in auctioning of the jewels pledged by him. It is the case of the petitioner that the jewels pledged by him were auctioned by the 2nd respondent bank prior to the cut off date fixed by the bank i.e., 01.12.2014, without any prior notice to the petitioner despite the petitioner having paid the entire loan amount. However, it is seen that notices were issued on 01.09.2014 as well as on 10.11.2014 calling upon the petitioner to pay the loan amount. Though, the petitioner claims he approached the respondent for payment of loan amount, no proof has been filed by the petitioner with regard to payment of the loan amount. Further, the said jewels are said to have been auctioned in the year 2014, the petitioner had made his representation only on 28.07.2025 which is after a lapse of more than a decade. Thus, the Writ Petition suffers from dela