IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4355/2026 Decided on: 02.04.2026 Satya Prakash …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 4 & 5. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 & 6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. In view of the nature of submissions being made and the order being passed hereinafter, notice of this petition is not required to be served upon respondents No.7-10. Reply is also not required to be called for from the appearing respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard at this stage. 3. The dispute involved pertains to the non-payment of the loan outstanding in the name of petitioner’s late father, Sh. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Ramji Dass. Respondents No. 7 to 10 are also stated to be the successors-in-interest of the deceased. 4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding loan amount of his late father, as reflected in Annexure P-6 dated 01.01.2026, provided reasonable time is granted to him by the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the Bank would be willing to consider petitioner’s case, subject to the petitioner approaching it with a constructive proposal, which may be examined by the Bank in accordance with law and its applicable schemes and guidelines. 5. In view of the pleadings and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation containing comprehensive proposal for liquidation of the entire outstanding loan liability of his late father towards the bank, within a period of two weeks from today. In case such proposal is received by the bank within the aforesaid period, the respondent-Bank shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and applicable schemes/guidelines, within further period of two weeks thereafter. 3 Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent-bank against the petitioner & the proforma respondents in respect of the outstanding loan liability of late Sh. Ramji Dass. However, in case no representation is received by the respondent- bank within the stipulated period, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 2nd April, 2026(rohit)