WPMS/448/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 2194 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
                        BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 410 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Mussarat Nabi Khan.                             ...Petitioner

AND:
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                ....Respondents

                            with

     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 448 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Mussarat Nabi Khan.                             ...Petitioner

AND:
State of Uttarakhand
and others.                                ....Respondents

     (By Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. T.S.
     Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand
     and Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 3)


                      JUDGMENT

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 410 of 2018 are being considered.

2. By means of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 410 of 2018, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned recovery citation dated 28.04.2017 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.

12,30,610.75/- only (Rs. Twelve Lac, Thirty Thousand, Six Hundred Ten and Seventy Five Paise) alongwith the interest @ of 13.20 per annum.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid recovery citation and alternatively to accept the aforesaid loan amount in equal and easy installments as will be fixed by this Hon'ble court in the facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has entered into One Time Settlement with the respondent-Bank and a sum of ` 9,00,000/- has been paid to the respondent-Bank in terms of One Time Settlement and the remaining amount is to be deposited till March, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has also endorsed the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In view of the subsequent development, the reliefs, as claimed in the writ petition, do not survive.

5. Accordingly, the writ petitions fail and are dismissed.

6. There will be no order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan