1 CGHC010364892024 2026:CGHC:38164 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5389 of 2024 1 - Ramesh Sitlani S/o Shri Harish Sitlani, Aged About 42 Years R/o In Front Of Lafagarh Gas Godown, Shubham Vihar Mangla, Bilaspur, C.G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Axis Bank Regional Office Gurukripa Towers, Vyapar Vihar Road Bilaspur, And Ps Civil Lines, Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisagarh Pin495001 2 - Axix Bank Branch Raipur Opp. New Bus Stand , Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur 492004 Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Priyanshu Ojha, Advocate None appears for the respondents, though served. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.08.2026 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, quashing of the e-auction notice dated 06.05.2024 and for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme or to grant sufficient time for repayment of the outstanding amount. 2. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the e-auction notice dated 06.05.2024 and nullify it's entire consequences /action which is scheduled to be on 29th May 2024 and later. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 01 to decide the representation given to given to respondent no. 1 under One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme or provide sufficient time to repay the outstanding amount. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends coercive action pursuant to the aforesaid e- auction notice. 3 4. None appears on behalf of the respondents, though service is complete. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the reliefs sought in the present petition, this Court finds that the petition is premature. The petition was instituted in the year 2024 and, even as on date, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the alleged seizure of the vehicle has actually been effected or that any further coercive action, pursuant to the impugned notice, has been taken against the petitioner. 7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of as premature. 8. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a fresh petition, in accordance with law, in case any exigency arises or any coercive action is actually taken against him. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha