[2025:RJ-JP:13761] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4455/2021 Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Maujpur, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Alwar, Rajasthan. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Laxmangarh, District Alwar. 3. State Bank Of India, Regional Office Tilak Marg, Near Udhyog Bhawan, Jaipur Rajasthan. 4. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, Branch Ramgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Babu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC assisted by Ms. Gunjan Chawla Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with Mr. Vikram Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 26/03/2025 This writ petition is filed with following prayers:- “(I) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned notice dated 17-12-2020 issue by the respondent No.-2 as well as the recovery proceeding pending against the petitioner before the S.D.O. Laxmangarh may kindly be quashed and set aside by restraining to the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceedings in terms of recovery of Loan amount against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:13761] (2 of 4) [CW-4455/2021] (II) Respondent No.3 & 4 may also kindly be directed to grant the benefit of OTS policy-2020 scheme to the petitioner by exemptin/waving up to the 90% KCC loan amount of the petitioner sanctioned. (III) That any order which this Hon’ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was sanctioned certain credit facilities by the respondent-Bank. On default in repayment of the loan amount, it initiated proceeding against him under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for brevity “the Act of 1974”) whereupon, a notice dated 17.12.2020 was issued by the respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Act of 1974. It is further stated in the writ petition that despite submission of an application with the respondent No.4-Manager for settlement of the loan account as per the One Time Settlement Policy-2020, no heed was paid. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual context, the aforesaid prayers have been made. In its reply, the respondent-Bank has denied that the petitioner even submitted any representation/application for settlement of the loan account under the OTS Policy-2020. It is further denied that the petitioner is covered under the OTS Policy- 2020 placed on record by him alongwith the memo of the writ petition as Annexure-6. During the course of oral submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner made only one contention that his loan account has erroneously been categorized as NPA. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the notice impugned dated [2025:RJ-JP:13761] (3 of 4) [CW-4455/2021] 17.12.2020 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to settle the loan account under the OTS Policy-2020. Per contra, learned counsels for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in their respective reply, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Although, assailing the action of the respondents, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is qua wrong classification of his loan account as NPA but, the writ petition is bereft of any such averment or ground in it. Nor, any such relief is prayed for. Thus, there is complete lack of factual foundation in this regard in the pleadings so as to examine its validity. Rather, it is prayed that the petitioner may be extended benefit of OTS Policy-2020 floated by the respondent-Bank which, indisputably, is applicable on the accounts which are categorized as NPA. In view thereof, it is apparent that the petitioner is trying to blow hot and cold in the same breath which is not permissible. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has made no other contention during the course of oral submissions but, in the interest of justice, this Court proposes to examine the averments made in the writ petition on their merit. With regard to contention of the petitioner in the memo of the writ petition that despite filing an application for settlement of his loan account under the OTS Policy-2020, except making a bald averment, no material is placed on record to substantiate the same. The respondent-Bank has categorically denied that the petitioner ever applied for settlement of loan account under the OTS Policy-2020. In view thereof, this plea warrants no consideration. [2025:RJ-JP:13761] (4 of 4) [CW-4455/2021] So as to challenge to the notice dated 17.12.2020 is concerned, indisputably, it is a show-cause-notice and the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the prescribed authority under the Act of 1974 and to contest the proceeding. It has so been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court also vide its order dated 01.05.2018 in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Bishnoi versus State Bank of India & Anr.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8131/2016. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/s-345