C o u r t N . 2 2 S l 1 5 1 / C L 19.08.26 D/L Sl-08 Ct. 07 (Samar) WPA 20130 of 2026 Kamal Krishna Das Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. Mr. Purnasish Gupta, Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mukhopadhyay, ….for the petitioner. . Mr. Debashis Saha,, ….for the SBI. 1. This writ petition alleges inaction on the part of the Bank in considering the petitioner’s representation dated July 17, 2026 for one time settlement. 2. The petitioner had availed of a credit facility for home loan from the Bank which is allegedly in default. The respondent Bank has initiated proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. The petitioner has made a representation for repayment of the loan through one time settlement. The petitioner complains that his representation made on July 17, 2026 still remains unconsidered. 4. The Bank submits that the petitioner is in the habit of making repeated representation without living up to the promises made to the Bank. 5. It is submitted that earlier too on March 12, 2026 2 the petitioner had made a representation for one time settlement promising payment of a sum of rupees fifteen lakh. The Bank submits that the said offer of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was informed about the same on April 10, 2026 thereby requesting the petitioner to comply with the commitment made by the petitioner by paying rupees fifteen lakh at a time under the OTS Scheme. 6. It is submitted that despite such communication, the petitioner did not pay the said amount. The Bank further submits that the petitioner has thereafter made another representation dated July 17, 2026 with the same amount. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court of the view that there is no use keeping the writ petition pending. 8. Since the petitioner has availed of a credit facility only for a home loan and the petitioner has made a second representation saying that he could not arrange for the fund due to the petitioner being in dire straits, the Bank would be free to consider such representation in accordance with law. It is made clear that there is no mandate on the Bank to enter into a compromise or one time settlement with the petitioner. However, if the petitioner’s offer 3 appears to be reasonable to the Bank, the Bank may consider the same and inform the petitioner accordingly. 9. It is clarified that since no mandatory order has been passed by this Court this order shall not affect the action taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act or before the Debts Recovery Tribunal or before any other forum in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, WPA 20130 of 2026 stands disposed of. No Costs.. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)