IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6469/2026 Decided on: 04.05.2026 Pradeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 & 5. Ms. Ichha Chauhan, Advocate vice Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 6. Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.7 & 8. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing impugned auction notice dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and rejection letters dated 09.03.2026 & 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6 & P-7). (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider and finalize One Time Settlement (OTS) of petitioner in a fair and reasonable manner disclose criteria and settlement amount.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in default of repayment of loans obtained by him from respondent No. 7 for purchasing certain vehicles, which were hypothecated with the respondent-bank in lieu of the said loans. Possession of the vehicles in question has already been taken by respondents No. 7 & 8. One of petitioner’s vehicles bearing registration No. HP-01B-6363 is the subject matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.2 Learned counsel further submits that qua the other three vehicles, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, the petitioner has many times requested the respondent-bank for One Time Settlement/General Settlement of the loan accounts, but the respondent-bank has not considered his application in a constructive manner and no reasoned order has been passed on petitioner’s application, whereas somewhat similar applications moved by other loanees have been accepted and their loan accounts have been settled under the One Time Settlement/General Settlement Scheme. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if he is permitted to apply afresh to the respondent-bank for One Time Settlement/General Settlement of his loan accounts, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, with a 2 CWP No. 3929/2025 3 direction to the respondent-bank to consider and decide such representation/application in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that the bank is not averse to consider petitioner’s application in accordance with law. 3. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek One Time Settlement/General Settlement of his loan accounts by filing a representation/application to the respondent-bank. In case such representation is made within two weeks, the same shall be considered & decided, in accordance with law, within two weeks thereafter by the respondent-bank by passing a reasoned order. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner. Till such time, coercive action, if any initiated against the petitioner, be put on hold. In case the representation is not preferred by the petitioner within the indicated timeline, the protection made available to him under this order shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 04th May, 2026(rohit)