Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Pradeep Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without examining merits, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation/application for One Time Settlement/General Settlement of his loan accounts; if filed within two weeks, the respondent-bank to consider and decide it in accordance with law within the following two weeks by passing a reasoned order and communicating it to the petitioner; coercive action against the petitioner put on hold till then; the protection stands vacated if the representation is not filed within the indicated timeline; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should issue quashing the impugned auction notice dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and the rejection letters dated 09.03.2026 & 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6 & P-7). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Without examining the merits of the matter, the 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.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner makes such representation within two weeks, the respondent-bank shall consider and decide it in accordance with law within two weeks thereafter by passing a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner.ratio¶27
Till the representation is considered and decided as directed, coercive action, if any initiated against the petitioner, is to be put on hold.ratio¶27
The interim protection made available to the petitioner under this order shall stand vacated if he does not prefer the representation within the indicated timeline.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) — CWP No. 6469/2026, decided 04.05.2026 — Pradeep Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors. The petitioner, in default of repayment of vehicle loans obtained from respondent No. 7 (the respondent-bank), whose hypothecated vehicles had already been taken into possession by respondents No. 7 & 8, sought (i) quashing of an auction notice dated 07.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and rejection letters dated 09.03.2026 & 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6 & P-7), and (ii) a mandamus to consider and finalize his One Time Settlement fairly, disclosing criteria and settlement amount. His repeated OTS/General Settlement requests had drawn no reasoned order, while somewhat similar applications by other loanees had been accepted and settled. One of his vehicles (HP-01B-6363) is the subject of a separate petition, CWP No. 3929/2025 (Pradeep Kumar v. State Bank of India & Ors.). Without examining the merits, the Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek OTS/General Settlement by a fresh representation to the respondent-bank; if made within two weeks, the bank was to consider and decide it in accordance with law within the next two weeks by a reasoned order communicated to the petitioner; coercive action was put on hold meanwhile, the protection standing vacated if the representation was not filed within the indicated timeline; pending miscellaneous application(s) also stood disposed of.

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.

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

04^th May, 2026(rohit)