2025:HHC:30598 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1681 of 2025 Decided on : 08.09.2025 Santosh Sharma …Petitioner Versus Managing Director, H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30598 consider the case of the petitioner for one time settlement as per the scheme of One Time Settlement, which is in existence with the respondent bank. ii) That annexure P-1 i.e. auction notice issued by the respondent may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. When this case was listed on 05.08.2025, the following order was passed by the Court “On the request of learned counsel for the parties, hearing of the matter is deferred by four weeks, to enable the respondents to file reply who have not yet filed the same. However, order dated 27.01.2025, is modified to the extent that interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue, but subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. As prayed for, list on 08.09.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents inform the Court that after availing the loan amount in the year 2004, till date, i.e. for the last 21 years, not even a single penny has been paid by the petitioner despite the fact that she was earlier in job and now is drawing pension. 4. This Court is of the considered view that any 3 2025:HHC:30598 indulgence shown to the petitioner would only amount to giving premium to her act of not complying with the Court orders and not making good the amount of loan obtained by her from the respondent-Bank two decades ago. 5. Therefore, as this Court sees no reason to show any indulgence to the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on account of her conduct, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 08, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)