Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/791/2010 on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 791 of 2010
BETWEEN:
Raghuvir Singh (Deceased) & Others. .......Petitioners
(By Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate)
AND:
Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur
District Udham Singh Nagar & others. .....Respondents
(By Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 & Ms. Anju Mehta,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
Advocate for respondent no. 2)
JUDGMENT
This writ petition was filed in the year 2010
seeking the following reliefs:-
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari by quashing the recovery citation
dated 29.04.2010 issued by respondent no. 1 to
the petitioner for the recovery of the loan amount
for Rs. 5,16,206/=+other (Annexure No. 1 to this
writ petition)
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1,
not to recover the amount of loan of Rs.
5,16,206/=+ other from the petitioner as arrears
of land revenue under the provisions of U.P. Public
Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1972.
III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent no. ,
Uttaranchal Bahu Udeshiya vitta Evam Vikas Nigam
Ltd. Udham Singh Nagar to accept the loan amount
in easy instalments."
2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that
Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam
Limited, Udham Singh Nagar is a Corporation owned
and controlled by Uttarakhand Government.
Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste, who took a
loan of `4,11,000/- from aforesaid Corporation for
purchasing a Tata-Sumo Car for running it as Taxi.
3. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of
loan, therefore, a recovery certificate was issued by
the Corporation for recovery of outstanding dues,
amounting to `5,16,206/-+other charges. Feeling
aggrieved by the recovery citation dated 24.09.2010
issued by Tehsildar, Jaspur (Udham Singh Nagar),
petitioner filed this writ petition. Now legal
representatives of the petitioner have been
substituted in terms of order dated 01.10.2021.
4. Contention in the writ petition was that the
loan taken from respondent no. 2 is a commercial
loan for purchasing a car, therefore, it cannot be
recovered under provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public
Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and, only a
loan advanced under State Sponsored Scheme, can
be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
5. Since no counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the lending agency (respondent no. 2),
despite several opportunities, therefore, this Court
vide order dated 22.10.2021 directed District
Manager, Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam
Vikas Nigam Limited, Udham Singh Nagar to appear
in person before this Court, with entire record, on the
next date.
6. In sequel to the said order, Mr. Aman
Anirudha, District Social Welfare Officer, Udham Singh
Nagar, who is having additional charge of the post of
District Manager, Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta
Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, appeared in Court today.
He produced the loan agreement executed between
petitioner and respondent no. 2 on 17.04.2003, which
is taken on record.
7. Perusal of the loan agreement reveals that
in clause 18, there is a stipulation that in case of any
default in repayment of loan, the outstanding amount
can be recovered as arrears of land revenue through
District Magistrate and the borrower would be liable
to pay 10% of the outstanding amount, as recovery
charges.
8. Mr. Aman Anirudha, District Social Welfare
Officer/Incharge District Manager, Uttarakhand
Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Limited,
Udham Singh Nagar has apprised the Court that 85%
of the amount disbursed as loan to the petitioner was
sourced from National Scheduled Castes Finance &
Development Corporation at interest rate of 7% per
annum and the remaining amount of loan was
provided by the Uttarakhand Government at interest
rate of 4% per annum. He further informed that due
to default committed by petitioner in repayment of
loan, State Government has repaid the amount due to
National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development
Corporation with interest, as State Government stood
as guarantor in respect of the said amount. He
further submitted that loan was sanctioned to
petitioner under a State Sponsored Scheme meant for
persons belonging to weaker sections of society, on a
subsidized rate of interest for providing self-
employment and there was a stipulation in the loan
agreement that outstanding amount shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue through
Collector, therefore, according to him, respondent no.
2 was well within its right to issue recovery certificate
for recovery of the loan amount.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon a judgment rendered in the case of Iqbal Naseer
Usmani v. Central Bank of India and others, reported
in AIR (2006) S.C. 893. In that case, the commercial
bank, which had advanced loan, had filed a Money
Recovery Suit and obtained decree against the
borrower, but, instead of getting the decree executed,
the lender bank approached the Tehsildar for issuing
a certificate of recovery under Section 3 of Uttar
Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.
In this background, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
since there is no evidence to suggest that the loan
was disbursed under a State Sponsored Scheme,
therefore, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys
(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, cannot be invoked.
The said judgment is distinguishable on facts, as the
loan was given by a commercial Bank in the course of
routine banking business and not under a State
Sponsored Scheme.
10. A perusal of the loan agreement executed
between petitioner and respondent no. 2 leaves no
scope for doubt that petitioner was granted loan
under a State Sponsored Scheme at subsidized rate
of interest. Respondent no. 2 is a Government
Company, which gives loan only to weaker sections of
society under various schemes of the Government.
As per loan agreement, the loan sanctioned to
petitioner on 17.04.2003 was divided into two parts,
namely, (a) margin money of `42,000/- at the
interest rate of 4% per annum; and (b) term loan of
`3,69,000/- at the interest rate of 7% per annum.
Clause 18 of the loan agreement clearly stipulated
that in case of any default in repayment of the loan,
the outstanding amount shall be recoverable through
Collector, as arrears of land revenue.
11. In such view of the matter, recovery of the
outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue from the
petitioner cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no scope
for interference with the mode of recovery adopted by
respondent no. 2.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
