WPMS/317/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2170 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
              AT NAINITAL
               ON THE 1st DAY OF JULY, 2021

                               BEFORE:

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


            Writ Petition (M/S) No.317 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Gopal Singh Puna                                     .....Petitioner
       (None present)

AND:

     District Magistrate, Bageshwar & Ors.
                                       .....Respondents

       (Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Addl. C.S.C. and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Standing
       Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2 and
       Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent no.3)


                              JUDGMENT

There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3-Bank through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner has challenged a recovery citation issued by Tehsildar, Bageshwar for recovery of ` 12,61,928 + other charges. It transpires that petitioner took an agricultural loan for establishing of a dairy from Canara Bank, Branch Bageshwar (respondent no.3 herein). Bank issued a recovery certificate, pursuant to which, Tehsildar has issued

impugned recovery citation, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

3. Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2021, granted protection to the petitioner, subject to the condition that he shall deposit a sum of ` 1.00 Lakh within 15 days. Since petitioner could not deposit the said amount, therefore, on his request, time for depositing sum of ` 1.00 Lakh was extended till 24.03.2021 vide order dated 04.03.2021.

4. A Misc. Application being IA No.3/2021 has been filed on behalf of respondent Bank, supported by an affidavit. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that despite two opportunities, petitioner has not deposited the amount of ` 1.00 Lakh, as directed by this Court. It is further stated that on account of interference made by this Court with the impugned recovery citation, Tehsil authorities has returned the recovery citation to the bank.

5. There is no dispute that petitioner has taken a loan amounting to ` 9.00 Lacs from the respondent bank. In para 8 of the writ petition, petitioner has stated that he is ready to repay the balance loan amount but needs some breathing time. However, from the conduct of the petitioner, as discussed above, it appears that petitioner has no intention of repaying the loan. Petitioner is bound by the conditions stipulated in the loan agreement. Thus, there is no scope for interference

in the matter. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 05.02.2021 and 04.03.2021 stand vacated.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Rajni