IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 385 and 386 of 2023 Decided on 30th June 2025 CWP No.385 of 2023 Shri Harish Chander Negi …Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others …Respondents CWP No.386 of 2023 Roshan Lal …Petitioner Versus The Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. B.N. Mehta, Advocate, in both the petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal, for respondents No.1 and 2, in both the petitions. Mr. Pushpinder Singh Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.3 in CWP No.385 of 2023 and for respondents No.3, 4 and 6 in CWP No.386 of 2023. Mr. Kunal Mehta, Advocate, vice Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondent No.4, in CWP No.385 of 2023. Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.4, in CWP No.385 of 2023. 2 Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) When these cases were taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that a similar case i.e. CWP No.9802 of 2023, titled as Akshay Sharma versus Union of India and others was dismissed by this Court on 19.12.2023 by holding that the issue raised therein could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but with liberty to the petitioner to seek such remedy as may permissible in law. 2. This order was assailed by way of LPA No.306 of 2024 and Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal in the following terms:- “This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWP no. 9802 of 2023. 3.Via the writ action, the appellant had sought a direction for waiving the loan which, according to him, was advanced to his deceased grandfather Shri Sita Ram, and in the alternative, an order for implementing the subject One-Time Settlement (OTS) scheme. 4. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition at the threshold on the ground that it involved consideration of disputed issues of fact, and therefore, the writ action was not viable. 5. This apart, we are also of the view that prayers sought in the writ petition as such cannot be granted by the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As indicated above, the appellant seeks waiver of the loan advanced to his grandfather, and in the alternative, implementation of the OTS scheme. Waiver of the loan cannot certainly be ordered by the Court. 5.1. Since, Mr. Abhishek Nagta, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent no.4 says that if the appellant were to approach the said respondent, it 3 could consider waiver of penal interest and not the principal amount and interest, we put this aspect to the learned counsel for the appellant. 5.2 Having considered the pros and cons of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he wished to withdraw the appeal and approach respondent no. 4 for requisite relief. 6. Thus, the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. In case, the appellant was to approach respondent no.4, it will consider the representation of the appellant, albeit, as per law. 7. Pending applications also stand disposed of.” 3. Learned counsel, accordingly, submit that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw these petitions but with liberty to approach respondent No.4 by way of a representation in terms of the observation made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the LPA. 4. Petition are disposed of withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.4 by way a representation spelling out there in the issues raised in the petition. 5. In the event of any such representation being filed within a period of four weeks from today, let the same be decided by the appropriate authority within a period of twelve weeks as from the date of receipt thereof in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 30, 2025 (Vinod)