IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14253 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shyam Dutt …….Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Azad Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, 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 challenge a notice issued by the respondent-Bank attaching his property for the aforesaid reason. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had availed cash credit limit and term loan, total amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- from the respondent- Bank in the year 2013. 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 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) 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 he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 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 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) for settling petitioner’s loan account under the One Time Settlement Scheme in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. 3 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. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 05, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)