IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6311 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 11.04.2008 Satpal .... PETITIONER Versus State Bank of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the respondent bank to set aside the letter dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-6), issued by it, with a further direction to the respondent bank for not taking any action on the basis of the said letter. We have heard counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, in the present case, the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 4,80,000/- from the respondent bank on 9.7.2001. Thereafter, till date, the petitioner has not paid even a single penny towards the said loan. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 386 of 2008 in this CWP No. 6311 of 2008 -2- Court with a prayer that the respondent bank be directed to consider the representations made by him for settlement of his account under the One Time Settlement Policy of the Bank. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent bank to consider the representations of the petitioner. In terms of the said direction, the respondent bank has considered the representations and conveyed to the petitioner that the offer of Rs. 5.00 lacs made by him, being too low, was not acceptable to the respondent bank. Thereafter, the second offer of Rs. 5.50 lacs was made by the petitioner, which has also not been accepted by the respondent bank. Ultimately, the bank has intimated the petitioner vide letter dated 2.4.2008 (Annexure P-6) that the outstanding amount against him is Rs. 8.55 lacs with interest calculated upto 29.2.2008 and he has been advised to deposit the said amount, failing which the proceedings will be taken against him under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002. In our opinion, when till date, the petitioner has not paid even a single penny to the respondent bank towards the loan amount, he is not entitled for any discretionary relief. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE April 11, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE