IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12637 of 2025 Decided on: 6th August, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4, respectively. 2. Petitioner has come up against the recovery notices issued against him by the respondent-Bank for his not depositing the loan amount. Petitioner has also put to 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 challenge a notice issued by the respondent-Bank attaching his property for the aforesaid reason. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had availed cash credit limit and term loan, total amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- from the respondent- Bank in the year 2008. That the petitioner had deposited total amount of Rs.5,33,798/- in the CC limit with the respondent-Bank. That the respondents have promulgated One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme for repayment of the outstanding loan amount. That the petitioner had made a representation on 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) to the respondent-Bank for considering settling his loan account under the said scheme. That there is no action on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondent-Bank is directed to consider and decide his aforesaid representation in accordance with law keeping in view the OTS Scheme. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 submits that in case the OTS Scheme is in operation and the case of the petitioner is covered under the said scheme, the respondent-Bank will consider the same within six weeks. 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining either the merits of the matter or the maintainability of the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 13.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) for settling petitioner’s loan account under the One Time Settlement Scheme in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh