Karam Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 5661 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38445 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Karam Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.U. Ansari,K.K. Mishra,R.K.Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.M.Asthana,Prashant Kr Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the recovery certificate/citation dated 18.5.2011 issued by the Teshildar, Tehsil - Suar, district Rampur (Respondent no. 3).

2. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have taken financial assistance of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lacs) from respondent no. 4 in the year 2007. This amount was paid by the petitioners alongwith interest in the year 2010 and certificate of discharge has been issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 4. Thereafter aforesaid recovery certificate was issued , which is being challenged as illegal.

3. The respondent Bank in its counter affidavit, in paragraph no. 18 and 19, however, has stated that the certificate of discharge dated 22.0.2010 (Annexure-2) is a forged document and the same was not issued by the Bank. In fact, the Bank has issued a recovery notice to Collector for realizing the amount as arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the recovery proceeding has been initiated against petitioner by authority concerned in accordance with law.

4. The dispute raised in the matter involves investigation into a seriously disputed fact. While the petitioner is assailing recovery proceedings on the ground that he has already discharged liability and has been issued discharge certificate by the Bank, this very foundation has been challenged by the Bank alleging it to be a forged document and their defence is that the petitioner has not cleared dues, the recovery proceedings  initiated is in accordance with law. Evidently, there is seriously disputed question of fact whether the petitioner has discharged his dues/liability and whether discharge certificate relied on by petitioner is a genuine document or forged one, as claimed by the Bank. Such disputed question of fact, in my view, ought to be raised in common law proceedings by filing a suit. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not be usurped for requiring this court to record evidence and then decide seriously disputed question of fact. The petitioner has, therefore, an alternative remedy in common law by filing a civil suit. It is not a fit case warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

Order Date :- 3.9.2014

SKS