WPMS/1670/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 2216 UK

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


     WRITPETITION (M/S) No. 1670 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Sukhpal Singh.                                   ...Petitioner
     (There is no representation for the petitioner)

AND:
District Magistrate, Haridwar
and others.                                  ....Respondents

     (By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
     Uttarakhand)


                       JUDGMENT

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:

"i. Issued a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned recovery citation of amount Rs. 1668844 plus other containing Annexure no 2 which is in the possession of the respondents, issued by respondent no 3 (Contained as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition)."

2. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.06.2018 granted protection to petitioner from recovery proceedings vide order dated 14.06.2018, subject to the condition of petitioner depositing a sum of ` 2,00,000/- with the respondent-Bank on or before 27.06.2018. Thereafter, on 23.10.2018, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court further provided that in case petitioner deposits ` 1,00,000/- with the respondent-

Bank, the same shall be accepted as part payment of the outstanding loan amount.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by Tehsildar, Roorkee on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2. In paragraph no. 9 of the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that petitioner has not deposited any amount in terms of order of this Court.

4. Admittedly, petitioner has taken a loan, therefore, he is bound to re-pay the same with interest. From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he has no intention to re-pay the loan, as despite order of this Court, he has not deposited any amount.

5. Having regard to his conduct, petitioner does not deserve any indulgence from this Court.

6. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the impugned recovery citation.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Arpan