IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13360 of 2026 Decided on: 5th August, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prakash Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Raman Jamalta, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued by quashing impugned auction notice dated 25.06.2026. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ii. That writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondents to initiate de-novo proceedings of loan recovery of amount of Rs.30,56,880/- from the Vyas and not from the petitioner’s personal property.” 3. Petitioner feels aggrieved against notice dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure P-3) issued by the respondent-Bank for auctioning his property. The notice has been issued by the respondent-Bank on account of alleged default in repayment of the loan amount by the petitioner. The petitioner has raised certain allegations in the writ petition about him being not personally responsible for repayment of the loan and thereby questioning the authority of the respondent-Bank in putting to auction his landed property. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the loan account with the respondent-Bank, provided some reasonable opportunity is afforded to him. Learned counsel further submits that to show his bonafides, the petitioner is even willing to deposit Rs.2 Lakhs with respondents No.2 to 4- Bank within a week from today. This is not objected by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4-Bank has placed on record a computation sheet from the Bank and submitted that as on date, total amount due under the 3 loan account in question is Rs.90,03,267.72/-, however, under the One Time Settlement Scheme, the tentative amount has been worked out at Rs.11,31,000.00/-. 5. Keeping the above submissions in view, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to represent to respondents No.2 to 4-Bank for settlement of the loan account in question alongwith the detailed proposal within a week from today, i.e. by or before 13.08.2026. In case, this opportunity is availed by the petitioner and he also deposits Rs.2 Lakhs alongwith the application & proposal to show his bonafides, the same shall be considered and decided by respondents No.2 to 4- Bank as per the One Time Settlement Scheme in accordance with law. The decision be taken after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of application and proposal from him. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. However, in case the petitioner does not avail the opportunity made available to him within the timelines indicated above, the limited protection granted under this order shall cease to remain in force. 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 05, 2026 Judge Mukesh