1 2026:CGHC:22808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2482 of 2026 1 - Rajaram Tripathi S/o Jagdish Prasad Tripathi Aged About 64 Years R/o House 151/herbal Estate, Ward Dnk Colony, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Co- Operative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit (Apex Bank) Through Its Managing Director, Head Office Sahakarita Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Collector Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent state authorities to consider / process the proposal /offer submitted by the petitioner as per the OTS Scheme towards the full and final settlement of all the outstanding dues and pending proceedings between the petitioner and the respondent Bank. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent state authorities to release the title deeds of the petitioner pertaining to Plot No.E6, E7 situated at Agruha Colony Sector 2 Raipura in favour of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation before the concerned respondent Bank expressing his willingness to deposit an amount of approximately Rs. 10 crores towards full and final settlement of the loan account, against the loan facility originally granted for an amount of approximately Rs. 4 crores. It is further submitted that despite submission of the aforesaid representation, the same has 3 not yet been considered by the competent authority of the Bank. Therefore, it is prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to the concerned respondent Bank to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that he does not oppose the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has no objection if the matter is disposed of in terms of the relief so sought. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into consideration the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondent Bank to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat