Allahabad High Court
Harbhajan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:172327
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25462 of 2023
Petitioner :- Harbhajan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Manoj Nigam,Sanjai Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned notice dated 09.06.2023 and a further prayer to direct the respondent bank not to make recovery from the petitioner in any manner under any provision of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took an agricultural loan of Rs.60,000/- for the purpose of cattle breading on 08.06.2009. Surprisingly, a demand notice dated 09.06.2023 and a notice dated 02.05.2018 has been sent to the petitioner showing outstanding amount of Rs.1,86,555/- have been issued. Prior to the aforesaid notice, a demand notice dated 07.11.2020 was also sent to the petitioner, wherein the outstanding amount was shown as Rs.50,500/-. Perusal of the aforesaid notices shows that 8 years have already passed, therefore, recovery of loan in any manner has become time bared. In view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Kerala vs. V.R. Kalliyanikutty reported in the year 1999 Law Suit (SC) 404. He further submits that the proper procedure as prescribed under the U.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1965 as well as Rule 24 to Rule 28 of Cooperative Land Development Bank Rule 1971 have not been followed, therefore, the aforesaid demand notice dated 09.06.2023 is liable to be quashed.
Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that several notices, first being on 02.05.2018 annexed on page 17 to the writ petition, second notice dated 07.11.2020 placed on page no.19 and the last demand notice dated 09.06.2023 have been given, despite from the date of taking loan, not a single penny has been paid by the petitioner.
The petition has been filed in a form of PIL which could not be done in such a situation. He further submits that the plea as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding time bared loan, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment as relied upon the petitioner has held that the statute of limitation nearly bars the remedy without touching the right. The right to recovery of loan would remain even though the remedy by way of suit would be time bared. Thus, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable in the facts of the case and the ground of limitation goes against the petitioner in case the judgment as relied upon by the petitioner is taken into consideration. He further submits that the proper notice as required under the relevant Rules of 1971 has been followed as several aforesaid mentioned notices have been given to the petitioner. By the last notice sent to petitioner a demand has been placed to the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues within seven days which is also in accordance with law as earlier ample time by different notices have been given to the petitioner. He further submits that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any procedure which has not been followed he has the remedy of approaching the Registrar under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.8.2023
Kalp Nath Singh
