2025:HHC:27035 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12945 of 2025 Decided on: 11.08.2025 Mamta Devi … Petitioner Versus State Bank of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Raminder Singh Joon, Advocate through VC with Ms. Anamika Kohli, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) issued by Respondent No.2 insofar as it declines the loan application of the petitioner on the erroneous ground of non- supply of documents; II. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent No. 1 to re-consider the petitioner's loan application afresh on merits and in accordance with law, on the basis of the documents already submitted by the petitioner; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27035 III. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing Respondent No.2 to decide the legal notice dated (Annexure P- 10) served upon it by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, by affording the petitioner a hearing if so required; IV. Pass appropriate directions to the respondents to follow the statutory guidelines and procedural safeguards applicable to grant of loans under the relevant Government schemes, as laid down under the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) regulations and the policies of State Bank of India;” 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of Annexure P-2, in terms whereof, an application of the petitioner under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme, relating to the manufacture of packing items of plastics (MINERAL WATER PACKING) was rejected on 01.02.2024 with the remarks “Under score documents not uploaded”. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 31.07.2025, assailing the rejection which took place on 01.02.2024. On a query put to learned Counsel as to how does the petitioner justify the delay in approaching the Court, he submitted that the after the issuance of Annexure P-9, the petitioner was trying to make up with the concerned respondents and was trying to find out as to what were the documents which were remiss, however, as nothing fruitful occurred in the interregnum, therefore, firstly, a legal notice was 3 2025:HHC:27035 issued on 10.05.2025 and thereafter, this petition was filed. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in approaching the Court. In fact, the writ petition is conspicuously silent as to why the order was not assailed by the petitioner within some reasonable time. There is nothing on record that after the issuance of Annexure P-9, there was some communication going on between the petitioner and the concerned respondent. Even the notice does not spell out that anything transpired after the issuance of notice (Annexure P-2) so as to substantiate what learned Counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar. Therefore, as the delay in filing the writ petition is not justified, the same is dismissed on account of delay and laches. However, it is clarified that rejection of this writ petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner in applying afresh to the authority. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (narender)