Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010129042026 2026:GAU-AS:9299 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3348/2026 SRI BIDHAN SAHA SON OF- SUNIL CHANDRA RABINDRA SAHA, RESIDENT OF 22, NAJIRAJAN, CHUTA HAIBOR, NAGAON, ASSAM-782003 VERSUS CANARA BANK AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH, 1ST FLOOR, DEE DEE GRANDEE, PANJABARI, SIX MILE, GUWAHATI- 781002 2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER CANARA BANK SPECIALIZED ARM BRANCH 1ST FLOOR DEE DEE GRANDEE PANJABARI SIX MILE GUWAHATI-781002 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER NOGAON BRANCH VIP ROAD NOGAON. PIN- 782001 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DAS, P J DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CANARA BANK, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL] 25.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Parvez, leaned counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to dispose of the Representation submitted by the petitioner on 19.12.2025 praying for settlement of the loan accounts. 3. It is stated that the petitioner had availed two loans [cash credit and housing loan] from Canara Bank where his father stood as a guarantor by mortgaging landed property which belongs to him. After sanction of the two loans, the petitioner as the borrower was paying regular installments to the Bank and also, maintained regular stock. In course of time, the drawing power was also increased. In the year 2024, the respondent Bank had acknowledged that the petitioner was maintaining good overdraft facility. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2024, the petitioner was diagnosed with brain tumor and in that connection, had to undergo a surgery at a Hospital in Bangalore. He was admitted in the Hospital from 29.01.2024 to 02.02.2024. After surgery, the petitioner has been regularly undergoing medical check-ups and till date, he is not medically fit. In view of such deteriorating condition, the petitioner could not pay the installments against the two loans regularly and as a result, the loan accounts were declared as Non-Performing Assets [NPAs]. After the loan accounts were declared NPAs, a Representation was submitted by the petitioner’s father before the respondent Bank on 19.12.2025 praying for settlement of the loan accounts. It was represented by the petitioner’s father that the market value of the property mortgaged was less than outstanding amount and he had collected a sum of Rs. 20 Page No.# 3/5 lakhs from friends and relatives in order to repay the outstanding loan amounts. By offering a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, the Bank authorities were requested to settle the loan accounts through the said Representation. 5. Mr. Parvez, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that the outstanding loan amount presently stood at Rs. 69,49,000/- and the Bank has already initiated an auction process under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest [SARFAESI] Act, 2002 read with Rule 8[6] of the Security Interest [Enforcement] Rules, 2002. In that connection, a Sale Notice has already been published on 08.06.2026 for auction of the mortgaged property through online e-Auction on 25.06.2026. He has submitted that the offer for one-time settlement of loan amounts is not be agitated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the relief sought for by the petitioner in the instant writ petition in the form of a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to consider the Representation dated 19.12.2025 wherein the father of the petitioner had made an offer for settlement of the loan accounts at Rs. 20 lakh. 7. The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent Bank authorities to accept the petitioner’s offer made through his father vide Representation dated 19.12.2025 for closure of the loan accounts by accepting the offer of Rs. 20 lakhs against the present outstanding amount of Rs. 69,49,000/-. 8. It is noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its decisions in State Bank of India vs. Arvindra Electronics Private Limited, [2023] 1 SCC 540; and Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and others vs. Meenal Agarwal and others, [2023] 2 SCC 805; has considered the matters of One Time Settlement Scheme and maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for consideration of officer for One Time Settlement of a financial institution/bank. Page No.# 4/5 9. It is observed in Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited [supra] that if a prayer is entertained on the part of a defaulting person to compel or direct the financial institution/bank to enter into a one-time settlement on the terms proposed by him, then every defaulting person who is capable of paying his dues as per the terms of the agreement entered into by him would like to get one-time settlement in his favour. It has observed that no writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing financial institution/bank to positively grant the benefit under the One Time Settlement to a defaulting borrower. A grant of benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme is always subject to eligibility criteria mentioned under the One Time Settlement Scheme and the guidelines issued from time to time. Such a decision is on commercial widsom of the financial institution/bank whose amount is involved. 10. In State Bank of India [supra], it is held that the borrower, as a matter of right, cannot claim for the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme of a financial institution/bank. A borrower who has not made the payment as per the sanctioned One Time Settlement Scheme to grant further extension as a matter of right and a borrower is bound to make the payment as per the sanctioned One Time Settlement Scheme and a High Court should refrain itself from granting any extension/benefit under the One Time Settlement Scheme while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. By way of the Representation dated 19.12.2025, the petitioner has represented before the respondent Bank authorities settle the loan accounts which have already been declared as NPAs, for Rs. 20,00,000/- against an outstanding dues of Rs. 69,49,000/- for which the Auction Sale Notice dated 08.06.2026 [Annexure-6 at Page-29] has already published for auction of the landed property on 25.06.2026. What is not permissible directly is also not permissible indirectly. The request in the Representation dated 19.12.2025 is, in essence, for one-time settlement. Therefore, a direction to the respondent Bank authorities to the Representation is not called for in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In view of such settled position of law qua the reliefs sought in the writ petition, this Page No.# 5/5 Court finds that the writ petition is not maintainable and being so, is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Rupam Basumatary Date: 2026.06.25 17:56:49 +05'30'