Judgment : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 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 for quashing the order dated 16.08.2023, passed by the respondent Corporation whereby the OTS offer dated 14.11.2022 of the petitioner was declined on evasive grounds; further order dated 11.12.2023, 14.02.2024 and 15.05.2024 by virtue of which representation for reconsideration of the said OTS offer dated 14.11.2022 were also declined, being illegal, arbitrary, perverse and against the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines, in the interest of justice. ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Corporation to consider the OTS proposal of the petitioner in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India guidelines according to which the minimum recovery amount is the outstanding amount classified as NPA alongwith nominal interest from the date of classification of the amount till final payment, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent- Corporation had initially sanctioned a Tem Loan of Rs.5.77 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.2.22. lac in August, 1999 for setting up a Restaurant at Village Sandhora, Mashobra, under the name and style of M/s Hillcrest Garden Café, out of which, Term Loan of Rs.5.77 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.1.88 lac was availed. The Corporation, looking into the creditworthiness of the petitioner, further sanctioned an additional Term Loan of Rs.17.33 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.6.67 lac for expansion of the existing Hotel during the month of October, 2001 and an Agreement of Loan was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation on 30th October, 2001. Out of the total sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.23.10 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.8.89 lac, the petitioner had availed Term Loan of Rs.23.10 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.7.89 lac on different dates and, thus, he availed total loan of Rs.30.99 lac from the respondent-Corporation. 3. As per the petitioner, he was re-paying the installments regularly, but in the year 2004, due to slow-down in the business, the performance of the Tourism Unit established by him also become slow and on account of which, his account also became irregular. 3. As per the petitioner, he was re-paying the installments regularly, but in the year 2004, due to slow-down in the business, the performance of the Tourism Unit established by him also become slow and on account of which, his account also became irregular. The respondent- Corporation declared the account of the Firm of the petitioner, namely, M/s Hillcrest Garden Café as Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as ‘NPA’) as on 10.04.2004, with an outstanding balance of Rs.21,39,643.00. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation took over the possession of the property in question on 26.05.2008, alleging default of Rs.30,95,692.00/- as the total outstanding balance as on the said date. Further, as per the petitioner, with a view to liquidate the outstanding dues, he entered into an agreement with one M/s Bharti Hitech Builders Pvt. Ltd. for the sale of the said property in the Month of October, 2008 and by way of a letter written to the respondent-Corporation, he made a proposal for settlement of the dues. The respondent-Corporation issued a Sale Notice of taken over Units on 01.12.2008, in terms whereof, the Unit of the petitioner was sought to be sold. The petitioner made a representation to the Corporation and detailed out the difficulties faced by him in clearing the dues. However, the property could not be sold, as no bidder came forward. Again, a Sale Notice was issued on 24.09.2009, but again, the property was not sold, as no bidder came forward. Vide letter dated 31.10.2009, the respondent-Corporation intimated the petitioner that as on 31.10.2009, an amount of Rs.48,52,040.00 was payable and advised him to pay the said outstanding amount by 31.10.2009. Thereafter, vide letter dated 7th April, 2010, the respondent-Corporation intimated the petitioner that the Corporation had granted two months’ time to him to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.48.52,100.00. Further, as per the petitioner, vide letter dated 24.05.2010, he represented the respondent-Corporation stating the losses and damages suffered by him on account of taking over of the premises by the respondent-Corporation and non-maintenance thereof and demanded damages. 4. On 19th July, 2010, an Agreement-Cum-Undertaking was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation, whereby, it was agreed that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.10.00 lac and tendered post-dated cheque of Rs.5.00 lac dated 20.07.2010 and sought restoration of the property which was taken over by the respondent- Corporation on 26.05.2008. 4. On 19th July, 2010, an Agreement-Cum-Undertaking was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation, whereby, it was agreed that the petitioner had already deposited Rs.10.00 lac and tendered post-dated cheque of Rs.5.00 lac dated 20.07.2010 and sought restoration of the property which was taken over by the respondent- Corporation on 26.05.2008. The physical possession of the land, building, furniture and fixture and misc. fixed assets installed thereon in the same condition in which its possession was taken over by the respondent- Corporation on 26.05.2008 was restored on the undertaking of the petitioner that he will pay the outstanding dues in monthly installments of Rs.5.00 lac. Restoration charges of Rs.6000/- were also deposited. Consequently, the physical possession of the property mortgaged/hypothecated to the respondent-Corporation, which was taken over on 26.05.2008 was handed over to the petitioner on 19.07.2010. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation issued a Notice dated 25.02.2011, being a Recall-Cum-Takeover Notice under Section 29/30 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1951 Act’), calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.35,39,444.00 on or before 22.03.2011, failing which, the possession of the mortgaged property would be taken on 25.03.2011, with a right to transfer the same by way of lease or sale for recovery of the dues. The petitioner filed an application on 10.03.2011 offering Rs.22.54 lac as full and final settlement of the accounts, with a token money of Rs.2.30 lac, which was rejected by the respondent-Corporation vide letter dated 18.03.2011 and the petitioner was advised to deposit the entire outstanding loan amount of Rs.35,39,444.00, which also included interest up to 09.01.2011 before 22.03.2011, positively to avoid proceedings under Section 29 of the 1951 Act. 5. In this backdrop, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1613 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2011, with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation for One Time Settlement with the respondent-Corporation within a period of four weeks, with further direction to the respondent- Corporation to consider the same within a period of three weeks, in terms of the directions of this Court. 6. 6. The petitioner submitted One Time Settlement proposal on 16.09.2011 for settling the Loan Liability on payment of Rs.25.00 lac, including Rs.10 lac already paid in compliance of the directions passed by this Court, i.e., the interim orders passed by the Court in CWP No. 1613 of 2011. As per the petitioner, this offer was without prejudice to the counter claim of Rs.12.00 lac for damages to the party due to the negligence of officials of the Corporation and business losses etc. for over two years. The respondent-Corporation by passing an un-reasoned order dated 7th October, 2011, rejected the proposal of the petitioner and he was advised to deposit Rs.27,88,091.00 after adjustment of the amount of Rs.10.00 lac deposited by the petitioner on the directions of this Court. The petitioner again made a representation on 17th October, 2011 and requested the Corporation to re- consider the proposal dated 16.09.2011 for Rs.25 lac, out of which, Rs.10 lac was already paid. He requested the Corporation to waive the interest charged w.e.f. 26th May, 2008 to 19th July, 2010, i.e., the period for which the property was in the possession of the Corporation. He also requested for compensation for pilferage, shortages and damages and wrong listing of items in original list of inventory. Said representation was rejected by the Corporation on 31.10.2011 and the petitioner was called upon to deposit the entire loan amount of Rs.27,90,523/- outstanding as on 10.10.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner again made a representation to the Corporation on 29.10.2011 for reducing the undue charges and compounded interest etc. Said representation was also rejected on 26.11.2011. Thereafter, another representation for One Time Settlement was made by the petitioner on 30.11.2011. The respondent-Corporation issued a Recall-Cum-Takeover Notice once again on 01.12.2011, calling upon the petitioner to pay outstanding dues of Rs.27,90,524.00 outstanding as on 09.10.2011. The petitioner submitted a cheque of Rs.4.00 lac to the respondent-Corporation on 03.01.2012, which was post-dated payable on 30.01.2012. The same was duly acknowledged by the Corporation. The petitioner despite facing several financial crises made payment of Rs.2.00 lac on 04.01.2012. 7. The Recall-Cum-Takeover Notice dated 01.12.2011 was again assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No. 352 of 2012. The same was duly acknowledged by the Corporation. The petitioner despite facing several financial crises made payment of Rs.2.00 lac on 04.01.2012. 7. The Recall-Cum-Takeover Notice dated 01.12.2011 was again assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of CWP No. 352 of 2012. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.4.00 lac in terms of the directions of the Court dated 13.01.2012 and on 27.12.2012, he was again directed to deposit another sum of Rs.2.00 lac by 04.03.2013. Vide order dated 22nd June, 2017, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.15.00 lac with the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks to show his bonafides. The petitioner complied with the said order and deposited an amount of Rs.15.00 lac with the Registry of this Court and vide order dated 16.08.2017, the respondent-Corporation was directed to file an affidavit disclosing therein as to what as per the respondent-Corporation was the liability of the petitioner as on 31st August, 2017. The affidavit filed by the respondent-Corporation demonstrated that as per the Ledger of respondent- Corporation, an amount of Rs.32.00 lac was outstanding, including interest upto 31.08.2017. Said writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 352 of 2012 was ultimately disposed of by this Court in terms of judgment dated 29th August, 2022 (Annexure P-21), which reads as under:- “By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "a) That the impugned Recall-cum-Take Over Notice dated 1.12.2011 Annexure: P-26, may very kindly be quashed and set aside." 2 When the case was listed on 27.07.2022, the following order was passed:- "When the case was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to a communication issued to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation, dated 23.12.2021 and submitted that in terms of the said communication, one proposal for one time settlement has been made by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation within the time stipulated by the said Corporation. But, thereafter, no response come forth from the Corporation. 2. Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation to have instruction in this regard. As prayed for, list after tivo weeks" 3. Today, Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the respondent- Corporation will take a decision on the proposal of the petitioner for one time settlement within reasonable time. 4. 2. Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation to have instruction in this regard. As prayed for, list after tivo weeks" 3. Today, Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the respondent- Corporation will take a decision on the proposal of the petitioner for one time settlement within reasonable time. 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition has lost its efficacy and accordingly, these proceedings are ordered to be closed,with the direction that the proposal which has been sent by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation for one time settlement, be considered sympathetically within a period of eight weeks from today by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In case, the respondent so desires, the petitioner be called upon to furnish such other information/documents as the respondent- Corporation may require. Till the decision of the said proposal of the petitioner, no coercive action will taken against the petitioner. After the passing of the final order also, no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner for a period of thirty days to enable him to have recourse to such legal remedy as may be available in law against the decision of the respondent-Corporation in case he is aggrieved thereof. 5. With these observation, this petition is disposed of, so 2004 also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.” 8. A representation for One Time Settlement was made vide letter dated 14.11.2022, wherein, the petitioner offered to settle the entire outstanding loan amount on payment of Rs.15.00 lac, besides having paid Rs.61.00 lac. The representation was decided by the Board of Director of the Corporation in its meeting held on 18.07.2023, rejecting the proposal on evasive grounds and the same was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 16.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding rejection of request for One Time Settlement. The respondent-Corporation did not reply to the said communication. The petitioner again sent a reference on 11.09.2023 for reconsideration of his One Time Settlement Proposal dated 14.11.2022 for settlement of NPA accounts, but the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act regarding rejection of request for One Time Settlement. The respondent-Corporation did not reply to the said communication. The petitioner again sent a reference on 11.09.2023 for reconsideration of his One Time Settlement Proposal dated 14.11.2022 for settlement of NPA accounts, but the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. 9. The petitioner also filed an application before this Court in the earlier proceedings filed by him praying for release of an amount of Rs.15.00 lac, which was deposited by him in this regard, which was allowed by this Court. The petitioner continued to make representation with the respondent-Corporation qua rejection of his One Time Settlement requests and feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his requests for One Time Settlement, he filed the instant writ petition. 10. The petitioner, who appeared in person, primarily submitted that though he is a senior citizen and was not treated fairly by the respondent- Corporation. He submitted that his application for One Time Settlement stood arbitrarily rejected by the respondent-Corporation. He also, on the asking of the Court, filed an affidavit to the effect that in lieu of the loan which was taken by him, he had repaid an amount of Rs.93,91,846/-, in terms of his affidavit dated 21st June, 2025. 11. At this stage, it would also be relevant to mention that in terms of the affidavit filed by the Assistant Manager, HPFC, New Himrus Building, Circular Road, Shimla, dated 26th June, 2025, the Corporation, in all, till the filing of the affidavit had received an amount of Rs.60,27,491/- from M/s Hillcrest Garden Café Sandhora, Mashobra, Shimla. 12. The petitioner also submitted that despite substantive amount having been deposited by him with the respondent-Corporation, his prayer for One Time Settlement was not considered in a fair and sympathetic manner by the respondent-Corporation. He stated that loan charges which were levied upon him under the Heads of interest and over due interest etc. were in violation of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines and otherwise also, the respondent-Corporation could not have charged any interest upon the loan amount for the period during which the property was in the possession of the respondent- orporation. He stated that loan charges which were levied upon him under the Heads of interest and over due interest etc. were in violation of the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines and otherwise also, the respondent-Corporation could not have charged any interest upon the loan amount for the period during which the property was in the possession of the respondent- orporation. He urged that he was always willing to make good the loan amount, but his business circumstances which were extremely adverse, prevented him from doing so, yet, the respondent-Corporation continued to make demands which were arbitrary, highly inflated and not in consonance with the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation. He further submitted that the rejection of his representations for One Time Settlement were also not in consonance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 13. On the other hand, the respondent-Corporation, in its reply, has mentioned that initially the respondent-Corporation sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.5.77 lacs and Soft Loan of Rs.2.22 lac in the month of August, 1999 for setting up of a Restaurant-Cum-Hotel at Village Sadhora, Post Office Baldian, Tehsil and District Shimla under the name and style of M/s Hill Crest Garden Café, out of which, Term Loan of Rs.5.77 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.1.88 lac was availed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Corporation sanctioned an additional Term Loan of Rs.17.33 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.6.67 lac for expansion of the existing Hotel in the month of October, 2001. Out of this, the petitioner again availed Term Loan of Rs.17.33 lac and Soft Loan of Rs.6.01 lac. Thus, out of the total sanctioned Term Loan of Rs.23.10 lac, the petitioner availed the entire amount and out of the total Soft Loan of Rs.8.89 lac, the petitioner availed an amount of Rs.7.89 lac an in lieu thereof, the petitioner had executed agreement of loan and agreement of hypothecation etc. Further, as per the respondent- Corporation, on account of the persistent defaults committed by the petitioner, in spite of liberal financial assistance and maximum accommodation given to him for clearing the defaults, as he did not clear the same, therefore, the Corporation had no other alternative but to take over the possession of mortgaged/hypothecated assets of Hotel under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. Thereafter, the Corporation initiated process for sale of the property, but the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 56/1 of 2008 alongwith an application praying for interim. The application was dismissed by the Civil Court on 05.09.2008. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge, which was again dismissed on 30.12.2008. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned District Judge, the Corporation, in order to recover its dues, published a Sale Notice during the month of September, 2009 and when the Corporation received an offer for an amount of Rs.70.93 lac alongwith earnest money of Rs.7.09 lac, the negotiations were also conducted with the prospective buyer, namely, Sh. Hemant Popli, Hemant Lodge, Nav Bahar, Shimla. He increased his offer to Rs.71.40 lac. As per Sale Policy of the Corporation, after receiving the highest bid, a Notice was issued to the petitioner to bring a better buyer than the offer received by the Corporation and in response thereto, the petitioner brought some buyers and also executed an agreement with M/s Bharti Hi-Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. at his own level for the sale of the property, however, the property could not be sold by the petitioner. As the petitioner was not repaying the dues of the Corporation, the Corporation had to issue Recall-Cum-Takeover Notices under Section 29 of the 1951 Act on 11 occasions in between December 2003 and November, 2007. Each time, the petitioner used to deposit small amounts and hold out that he would clear the defaults, with further promises to regularize the account. However, as this was not done, the Corporation lost its trust in the petitioner and thereafter, a communication was issued to the petitioner on 31.10.2009, intimating him that outstanding loan dues of Rs.48,52,040/- were payable as on the said date. In response to the said letter, on 31.10.2009, the petitioner tendered a post-dated cheque amounting to Rs.48,52,100/- dated 20.11.2009 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, East of Kailash, New Delhi. However, when the cheque was presented for clearance of dues of the Corporation, the same was received back un-cashed with the remarks “Exceed Arrangement”. Vide letter dated 16.02.2010, the Corporation had informed the petitioner to bring better buyers than the highest sale offer of Rs.71.40 lac received by the Corporation alongwith earnest money on 25.03.2010, when the sale negotiation was fixed with the intending purchaser. Vide letter dated 16.02.2010, the Corporation had informed the petitioner to bring better buyers than the highest sale offer of Rs.71.40 lac received by the Corporation alongwith earnest money on 25.03.2010, when the sale negotiation was fixed with the intending purchaser. The petitioner attended the sale negotiation held on 25.03.2010 and sought two months’ time, which was granted to him, to pay the entire outstanding amount. Vide letter dated 16.06.2010, the petitioner, while admitting the outstanding liabilities of Rs.46.64 lac including interest upto 09.04.2010, had committed to pay Rs.5.00 lac per month and requested to restore the possession of taken over assets. Said request was considered and possession of the hotel was restored on 19.07.2010 after execution of Agreement-Cum-Undertaking dated 19.07.2010. Said facts as per the Corporation, demonstrate that the petitioner had succeeded to scuttle the sale auction on one pretext or the other by making the commitments to pay the entire loan dues, but he failed to honour his commitments every time. According to the Corporation, after the property was restored to the petitioner, he again made defaults in the repayment of the committed amount, as agreed vide agreement dated 19.07.2010. The Corporation time and again called upon him to make good the loan amount as was due, but nothing was done by the petitioner. The One Time Settlement proposals which were made by the petitioners were conveyed to him as rejected, as the same were not falling within the parameters  of  the  One  Time  Settlement  Guidelines  framed  by  the respondent-Corporation. According to the Corporation, it had offered more than sufficient opportunities to the petitioner to clear the outstanding dues, but he always submitted false commitments and in these circumstances, the Corporation vide its Recall-Cum-Takeover Notice dated 01.12.2011 fixed the take over date as 12.01.2012. In response to the same, the petitioner, vide letter dated 02.01.2012, intimated the respondent-Corporation that his Collaborator deposited Rs.2.00 lac in the current account of the Corporation and further payment of Rs.4.00 lac was being remitted by his Collaborator on behalf of M/s Hill Crest Garden Café. The petitioner tendered a post dated cheque dated 30.01.2012 for Rs.4.00 lac and assured to clear the outstanding loan amount of respondent-Bank for the current Financial Year. The petitioner tendered a post dated cheque dated 30.01.2012 for Rs.4.00 lac and assured to clear the outstanding loan amount of respondent-Bank for the current Financial Year. He further informed that his Collaborator has sent a cheque of Rs.0.50 lac which would be cleared soon and requested to withdraw the Recall-Cum- Takeover notice in view of the position explained by the petitioner and remittance of part payments, the take over was deferred. The cheque of Rs.4.00 lac which was deposited by the petitioner when placed for its being honoured, was returned back un-cashed by the drawer bank. Further, as per the respondent-Corporation, in compliance to the order dated 29.08.2022, passed by this Court in CWP No. 352/2012, the petitioner was called upon to attend the office of Corporation to discuss his OTS offer and the petitioner attended the office of the Corporation on 22.11.2022 and his OTS proposal was discussed and he was requested to submit some necessary documents. The petitioner was asked by the Corporation vide letter dated 24.02.2023 to submit the desired documents, enabling the Corporation to place his OTS offer before the competent authority for consideration. Said letter was received undelivered with the remarks that the petitioner was out of station. The desired documents/affidavit dated 23.03.2023 attested on 24.03.2023 alongwith assets and liability were submitted by the petitioner to Corporation. The Corporation immediately placed the OTS offer of the petitioner before its Default Review Committee (DRC) in is meeting held on 06.04.2023. Said meeting was attended by the petitioner. The DRC considered the OTS offer for Rs.15.00 lac of the petitioner and recommended to the Board of Directors for its consideration and decision. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 18.07.2023 considered the recommendation of DRC on the OTS proposal of the petitioner. The Board of Directors noted that as per the OTS Guidelines of the Corporation, the OTS amount recoverable shall in no circumstances be less than 90% of realizable value of primary and collateral security available with the Corporation. As per the valuation report, the total value of the security was Rs.3,95,61,000/- and the 90% value of this security was Rs.3,56,04,900/- which was more than the outstanding loan amount of Rs.66,18,881/- and in this view of the matter, the Board of Directors of the Corporation rejected the OTS offer of Rs.15.00 lac. The decision was also conveyed to the petitioner. 14. The decision was also conveyed to the petitioner. 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the petitioner has been a habitual defaulter and he has never made good the promises made by him to the Corporation with regard to the outstanding loan amount. He submitted that the representation made by the petitioner was duly considered by the Corporation with regard to the OTS and as the same was not falling within the parameters laid down for the consideration of OTS proposal, therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the Corporation. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be dismissed. 15. I have heard the petitioner in person and have also heard learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. I have also carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as other documents appended with the petition. 16. I have mentioned in brief the respective contentions of the parties so as to understand the respective stand of the parties. In the abovementioned backdrop, now this Court would go into the legality of the order passed by the respondent-Corporation, in terms whereof, the request of the petitioner for One Time Settlement stands rejected. The impugned order is dated 16.08.2023, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-23. In fact, the same is a communication which has been addressed by the Law Officer of the respondent-Corporation to the petitioner, informing him of the rejection of his OTS proposal. The same reads as under:- “Without prejudice to the legal action already initiated by the Corporation for recovery of its outstanding loan amount, we refer to your letter dated 14.11.2022 vide which you bad submitted your One Time Settlement (OTS) offer to settle the entire outstanding loan amount on payment of Rs.15.00 lakhs. In this regard, it is informed that in compliance of the direction/ order passed on 29.08.2022 by the Hon'ble High Court of HP in CWP No. 352/2012 your OTS proposal was placed before the Default Review Committee (DRC) in its meeting held on 06.04.2023. This meeting was also attended by you. Your OTS offer was considered and after having detailed deliberation the Committee observed that the Primary & Collateral Security both having realizable value of Rs.9,36,37,000 lakhs (which later on was rectified for Rs.3,95,61,000/- by the valuer of the Corporation) against the outstanding loan dues of Rs. 66,18,881/- as on 28.02.2023/- lakhs are available with the corporation. Your OTS offer was considered and after having detailed deliberation the Committee observed that the Primary & Collateral Security both having realizable value of Rs.9,36,37,000 lakhs (which later on was rectified for Rs.3,95,61,000/- by the valuer of the Corporation) against the outstanding loan dues of Rs. 66,18,881/- as on 28.02.2023/- lakhs are available with the corporation. The Committee has further noted that as per OTS guidelines, settlement cannot be made for less than 90% of realizable value of primary & collateral security available with the Corporation and therefore, no relief under the present OTS guidelines is admissible. The Committee deliberated on all the issues raised by you in your representation and in your written submission regarding grant of relief which includes losses incurred during the period your hotel remained locked U/S 29 of  SPCs Act, 1951 and all the compound interest & misc. expenses charged to the NPA account. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Committee decided to place the matter before the Board with the above recommendations and as per the directions of Hon'ble High Court of HP for final decision. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Court of HP your proposal was placed before the Board of directors of the Corporations in its meeting held on 18.07.2023 and on the recommendations of the DRC the Board has also noted that as per OTS guidelines, settlement of loan account of your concern cannot be made for less than 90% of value of Rs.3,95,61,000/- of primary & collateral security available with the Corporation and therefore, no relief under the present OTS guideline is admissible. Keeping in view the substantial realizable value of the securities, the Board has decided to reject your OTS proposal of Rs.15.00 lakhs which may please note.” Thus, a perusal of the same demonstrates that the request of the petitioner for OTS has been rejected on the basis of Guidelines by mentioning therein that as the 90% of realizable value of primary and collateral security available with the Corporation was in excess of the amount which was due from the petitioner to the respondent, which was stated to be Rs.66,18,881/- as on 28.02.2023, the proposal was rejected. Rejection of the representation of the present petition on this ground in the considered view of this Court defies logic. Rejection of the representation of the present petition on this ground in the considered view of this Court defies logic. It is not understood as to how realizable value of primary and collateral security available with the Corporation in excess with 90% of the realizable amount can be a deterrent for the consideration of the case of someone like the petitioner for one time settlement. In fact, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the realizable value of the primary and collateral securities, which were there with the Corporation belonging to the petitioner, was much more than what the petitioner owes to the respondent-Corporation, the same could not have acted to the deterrent of the petitioner. 17. At this stage, this Court would like to again make a reference to the affidavits which have been filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent-Corporation, in terms whereof, whereas the petitioner claims that he has deposited an amount of Rs.93,91,846/- with the Corporation, as per the Corporation, it has received in all an amount of Rs.60,27,491/-. This amount, which admittedly, as per the Corporation has been received from the petitioner, is in lieu of the total Term Loan amount of Rs.23.10 lac and Soft Loan amount of Rs.8.89 lac. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent-Corporation should be more concerned with the settlement of the matter and realization of its debt, if any, from the petitioner, rather than trying to squeeze the petitioner, taking advantage of the fact that the value of the assets mortgaged by the petitioner with the respondent- Corporation are much more than the amount, which as per the Corporation is due to it from the petitioner. Similarly, the petitioner can also not make hue and cry of his being harassed by the Corporation, because the facts as are evident from the record, demonstrate that the petitioner has also not been fair with his dealing with the espondent-Corporation. It is apparent and evident from the record that he was a habitual defaulter and somehow he managed things with the respondent-Corporation and was able to ensure that the property was not put to auction earlier in between the year 2008 and 2012. It is apparent and evident from the record that he was a habitual defaulter and somehow he managed things with the respondent-Corporation and was able to ensure that the property was not put to auction earlier in between the year 2008 and 2012. This Court has a feel that the petitioner was helped by someone in the Corporation in this regard, because there was no occasion for the Corporation to have shown indulgence to the petitioner when admittedly he was a regular defaulter and was not honouring his promises of deposition of amounts as well as all the cheques deposited by the petitioner were not honoured. However, fact of the matter still remains that against an amount of approximately Rs.31 lac, which was availed by the petitioner as loan in the year 2001, even as per the respondent-Corporation, he has paid back an amount of Rs.60/- lac, as on the date of filing of the affidavit, i.e., 26th June, 2025. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it will be appreciable in case both the petitioner as well as respondent-Corporation make an endeavour to put an end to their issues by arriving at an amicable settlement, which is reasonable and can be honoured by the petitioner. The offer has to be made taking into consideration the amount availed by the petitioner as loan and the amount actually having been paid by him, in lieu thereof and not by eying the assets of the petitioner. Accordingly, in the light of the above observations, the petition is disposed of by setting aside order dated 16.08.2023 and by directing the parties to make a fresh endeavour to settle the issue in light of the observations made in this judgment. This Court again urges both the petitioner as well as the respondent-Corporation to ensure that the endeavour which is to be made by them for settlement of the issue is realistic and not theoretical one to frustrate the issue. The petitioner to approach the respondent-Corporation afresh by way of a representation/ proposal within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter, the respondent-Corporation shall take a decision on the said representation/proposal within a reasonable time, after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Pending miscellaneous application, if any also stand disposed of.