1 CGHC010302742026 2026:CGHC:34387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4086 of 2026 Rajaram Tripathi S/o Jagdish Prasad Tripathi Aged About 64 Years R/o House 151/herbal Estate, Ward D N K Colony, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, C.G. ... Petitioner 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. 4 - Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.06 18:17:27 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2026 1 By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 08.06.2026, whereby the petitioner's request for consideration of his proposal under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme has been rejected by treating the loan account as a fraudulent account under Clause 6 of the OTS Scheme. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent Bank to consider and process his proposal submitted under the OTS Scheme for full and final settlement of the outstanding dues. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “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 be pleased to set aside /quash the impugned order dated 08.06.26 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 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. 3 10.4 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. 10.5 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, though a guarantor to the loan account, has bona fide expressed his willingness to settle the entire dispute under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. It is submitted that during the currency of the OTS Scheme, the petitioner had submitted a proposal offering to pay a sum of Rs.10,10,11,111/- towards full and final settlement of all the outstanding dues, which is substantially higher than the original loan amount. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is even now ready and willing to deposit the aforesaid amount before the respondent Bank in terms of the OTS Scheme so that the long-pending dispute between the parties may attain finality and further litigation can be avoided. It is contended that instead of objectively considering the petitioner's proposal in the light of the OTS Policy, the respondent Bank rejected the same by treating the account as fraudulent without affording any opportunity of hearing. It is, therefore, prayed that an appropriate direction be issued to the respondent Bank to consider the 4 petitioner's settlement proposal in a fair, pragmatic and policy- oriented manner in accordance with the applicable OTS Scheme. 3 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Bank submits that in the event the petitioner submits a proper and comprehensive proposal in accordance with the applicable OTS Scheme, the same shall be examined and considered by the competent authority of the Bank strictly in accordance with the governing policy and applicable rules. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without entering into the merits of the controversy, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit a fresh and comprehensive representation/proposal incorporating the aforesaid offer under the applicable One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme before the competent authority of respondent No.2/Bank within a period of two weeks from today, if not already submitted. Upon receipt of such proposal, the competent authority of the respondent Bank shall consider and decide the same in a pragmatic, fair and objective manner, keeping in view the applicable OTS Policy and other relevant considerations, by passing a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible. 6 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim, the applicability of the OTS 5 Scheme, or the validity of the impugned order dated 08.06.2026, and all questions are left open to be considered independently by the competent authority in accordance with law. 7 It is further made clear that in the event the petitioner's proposal is not accepted or is rejected by the competent authority, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him in accordance with law. 8 With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh