Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 38417 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 November, 2024

Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:182144-DB
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37276 of 2024
 
Petitioner :- Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Vaish
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
 

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Dharmendra Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge the recovery citation dated 05.12.2023 pursuant to the letter dated 30.11.2023 issued by respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2.

3. It is not disputed that the aforesaid recovery proceedings have been initiated pursuant to an order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Lalitpur in Complaint Case No.12 of 2007 against which the petitioner herein preferred an appeal being Appeal No.1584 of 2010 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P, Lucknow.

4. The aforesaid appeal alongwith the connected appeals was decided by means of a judgment dated 30.03.2017 whereby the appeals were partly allowed and directions were issued to the bank to pay to the complainants the amounts specified in the order.

5. Counsel for the petitioner-bank has also not disputed that the aforestated orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have not been challenged by the bank.

6. The orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have attained finality, and it would not be open to the petitioner-bank now to dispute the correctness of the same. The recovery proceedings which have been initiated against the bank are merely consequential.

7. In addition to the above, we may also note that the instant writ petition has been reported to be beyond time by 246 days, and no plausible explanation has been furnished in the writ petition to explain the delay/laches.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition for the reliefs prayed for.

9. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

Shahroz