1 ( 2025:HHC:3003 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1178 of 2025 Date of Decision : 15.01.2025 Pradeep Kumar and another …… Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Vacation Judge (oral) Being aggrieved with issuance of public notice (Annexure P-2), whereby property of the petitioners has been put to auction on account of their having failed to repay the loan, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs: “i. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to settle the matter and grant time to the petitioner to repay the loan amount and further, the inflated amount of loan as shown in Annexure P-2 to the tune of Rupees 38,54,609/-, may very kindly be ordered to be rescheduled, as has been 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:3003 ) done in the matters of many other farmers, whose loan amount was re-settled. ii. That the matter may kindly be referred to the bank authorities for some settlement. iii. That writ in the nature of prohibition may kindly be issued, restraining the respondents from putting the property of the petitioner as mentioned in Annexure P-2, to further sale/auction to any other person and further time schedule be re-scheduled for the payment of balance loan amount, as has been done in the matters of many other persons. iv. That the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any precipitative and coercive action against the petitioner by putting the entire property of the petitioner for further sale. v. That Annexure P-2 may kindly be ordered to be quashed, to the extent for recovery of an amount of Rupees 38,54,609/-. vi. That the entry made in the revenue records qua auction/sale of the property of the petitioner and further the entry qua the ownership, mutation in the revenue records made, may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside, particularly in the facts and circumstances, when the bank authorities admitted that the original amount stands paid.” 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2/Bank, Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, states that the land proposed to be put to auction vide public notice does not belong to the petitioners, rather same has been purchased by the bank in the year 2016 in open auction, but in case, petitioners are ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount with up-to-date interest, respondent/Bank may consider the prayer for cancellation of auction. 3 ( 2025:HHC:3003 ) 3. Though, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioners are ready and willing to pay the entire loan amount with up-to-date interest, coupled with the fact that respondent/Bank if receives entire loan amount, has no objection in cancelling the public auction, this Court without adverting to the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the petitioners to deposit entire loan amount with up-to-date interest within a period of two weeks from today, i.e. on or before 29.01.2025 and in that event, notice of public auction (Annexure P-2) shall not be given effect to. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, in the event of non-payment of amount agreed to be paid, respondent/bank would be at liberty to proceed with the matter in terms of public notice of public auction (Annexure P-2). Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 15, 2025 (KS) Vacation Judge