Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rameshwar Kumar And Another vs State Of J&K And Others on 13 October, 2021 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU Reserved on 27.09.2021 Pronounced on 13.10.2021 OWP No. 159/2016 Rameshwar Kumar and another .....Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through : Mr. C. M. Koul, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. R. Bhat, Advocate v/s State of J&K and others .....Respondent(s) Through : Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, being the partners of the M/s Natraj Hotel and Restaurant situated at National Highway, Tikri, Udhampur, have filed the present petition for quashing Notice bearing No. SFC/DOU/15/192 dated 31.12.2015 issued by the office of respondent No. 3 by virtue of which, the petitioners have been asked to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 11.04 lacs within a period of 07 days. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to settle their loan case under the Settlement Scheme for Sick Unit (SSSU) as has been done in other loan cases. 2. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners were sanctioned an amount of Rs. 36.87 lacs under two loan accounts out of which an amount of Rs. 34,97,708/ was disbursed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners after availing the loan facility set up the said hotel and started paying the required installments towards liquidation of the loan liabilities. However, after some time, due to widening of the 2 OWP No. 159/2016 roads, the unit of the petitioners was closed. The petitioners opted for loan settlement under One Time Settlement Scheme and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 settled the loan on 24.07.2014 on the basis of distress value of assets determined as on 30.11.2012 by approved valuer of the respondents. Aggrieved by the settlement, the petitioners requested the respondents to reconsider their case for the settlement. A committee was constituted by the respondents, which has examined, considered and approved the settlement of the distress value of the unithotel of the petitioners valued as Rs. 46.04 lacs. It is further stated that the respondents again placed the case of the petitioners before the committee in its meeting held on 07.02.2015 and it was decided not to entertain the case of the petitioners and they were required to deposit the amount up to 31.03.2015. While the petitioners were in process of depositing the amount after arranging the funds, another scheme known as Settlement Scheme for Sick Units (SSSU) was announced on 14.10.2015. After coming to know about the said scheme, the petitioners applied and requested the respondents vide notice dated 15.01.2016 and thereafter vide reminder dated 22.01.2016 to process the case de novo for the settlement of the loan account under the said scheme as the case of the petitioners fell within the ambit and purview of clause 6 proviso (ii) and (iii) of the aforesaid SSSU. 3. It is further stated that as per the information provided by the respondents to the petitioners under Right to Information Act, the loan liabilities have been shown in both the loan amount i.e. account No. 1 and account No. 2 as nil and the unit has been classified as non 3 OWP No. 159/2016 functional and it shows the mala fide on the part of the respondents while demanding as Rs. 11.04 lacs from the petitioners vide letter dated 30.12.2015. The respondents vide letter dated 04.02.2016 addressed to the counsel for the petitioners conveyed that the hotels do not fall within the purview of so called scheme. The petitioners have impugned the letter dated 30.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of SSSU and further that the respondents have willfully avoided to redress the grievances of the petitioners with regard to their claim of wrong calculations by not giving the benefits of the money already deposited in the principal amount for which the respondents have not responded with any affirmative reason but the petitioners could only come to know through the infor