WPMS/539/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 729 UK

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
              AT NAINITAL
              ON THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                               BEFORE:

     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


              Writ Petition (M/S) No.539 of 2021

BETWEEN:
  Prem Chand Sen                                        .....Petitioner
     (Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate)




AND:

     State of Uttarakhand & others.                .....Respondents
     (Mr. Ganga Singh Negi, Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos.1, 3
     and 4)




                             JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following relief:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 22.09.2020 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. According to the petitioner, he purchased a Mahindra Max vehicle after taking a loan from respondent no.2. On account of some default on the part of the petitioner, recovery proceedings were initiated against him. Petitioner approached this

Court and in terms of an order passed by this Court, petitioner repaid the entire outstanding loan amount in four installments and thereafter no dues certificate was also issued to the petitioner by respondent no.2.

4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notice issued by respondent no.2, whereby petitioner has been asked to deposit a sum of ` 61,106/-. It is alleged in the demand notice that since the petitioner had not deposited the margin money in terms of the loan agreement while purchasing the vehicle, therefore, he is liable to pay the amount of margin money also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already made a representation to the respondent no.2 pointing out that petitioner is not liable to make any further payment towards the loan amount. She further submits that the petitioner contributed the margin money to the extent of difference in the price of the vehicle and the loan amount sanctioned to her. Therefore, the demand of margin money from the petitioner is unjust and uncalled for.

6. Only a demand notice has been issued against the petitioner and no coercive measures has been adopted as yet, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a

fresh representation to the Managing Director, Uttarakhand Minority Welfare and Waqf Development Corporation within two weeks from today. If petitioner makes such a representation, the Managing Director shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. Till such decision is taken, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Rajni