2025:HHC:2686 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.759 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.01.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ M/s Hotel Nature Valley ……...Petitioner Versus The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Others .…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: M/s. Vikrant Thakur and Shubham Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Balwant Kukreja and Ms. Drishti Sirswal, Advocates, for respondents No.1 to 3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file representation to respondents-Bank for redressal of its grievance. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents- Bank, Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, states that bare perusal of documents annexed with the petition itself suggests that representation filed by the petitioner already stands decided, but he was unable to dispute the fact that representation filed by the petitioner has not been decided in terms of guidelines/notification dated 17.03.2016, wherein specific framework has been provided for deciding the representation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. 2025:HHC:2686 2 3. In view of the above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the respondents-Bank, within a period of two weeks, for redressal of its grievance, in terms of aforesaid guidelines/notification, which in-turn shall be decided by the Bank, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, respondents-Bank while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the representation, in terms of guidelines/notification dated 17.03.2016 (Annexure P-18), by passing a speaking order. 4. Since issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings has been considered and decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Pro Knits Vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank and Others, (2024) 10 SCC 292, this Court hopes and trusts that authority concerned, shall also take note of afore judgment, while passing speaking order, in terms of instant order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, if it still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. January 10, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge