WPMS/1788/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 2441 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
           AT NAINITAL
         ON THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
                         BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1788 of 2018
BETWEEN:
Ram Gopal                         ...Petitioner
      (By Mohd Allauddin, Advocate)

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

      (By Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the
      State and Mr. Mahinder Singh Rawat, learned counsel for
      the Bank)

                       JUDGMENT

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate dated 07.06.2017 issued by Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Sultanpur, Laksar, District Haridwar.

2. A perusal of the recovery certificate reveals that petitioner had taken a group loan of ₹4.00 lakh and the outstanding amount against the said loan was ₹4,15,558/-.

3. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.07.2018 had granted protection to the petitioner from recovery proceedings, provided he deposits a sum of ₹25,000/- with the respondent Bank within one week. Subsequently vide order dated 23.07.2018 time, to deposit sum of ₹25,000/-, was extended for further three weeks.

4. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that petitioner has not deposited any amount in terms of the order of this Court. Thus, according to him, petitioner does not deserve any indulgence in the matter.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent nos. 1 & 2. Para 12 of the said counter affidavit is reproduced below:-

"12. That the content of paragraph no. 11 to 15 of the writ petition are denied in as much as the loan obtained by the petitioner was obtained by Vashnavi Joint Liability Group. Since all other members of the group are paying their respective amount except the petitioner, therefore, the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner is just legal and proper. It is further submitted that the loan has been granted to the petitioner is under the State Financial Sponsored Scheme hence, recovery proceedings are in accordance with law."

6. From the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that other members of the group are repaying the loan and it is only the petitioner, who has not paid any money, despite the order of this Court.

7. Admittedly, petitioner is a borrower, therefore, he is liable to repay the loan amount along with interest. Thus, any interference with the impugned recovery citation would be absolutely unwarranted. Thus, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the writ petition.

8. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Aswal