Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2846/2021 on 5 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2846 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Amrik Singh. ..........Petitioner
(By Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate)
AND:
Collector/District Magistrate & others. ...Respondents
(By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand and Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.
3)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging citation dated
08.11.2021 issued by Tehsildar, Sitarganj, District
Udham Singh Nagar. The said citation is for recovery
of ` 71,02,565+ recovery and other charges.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has sought the following reliefs:
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
Recovery citation dated 08-11-2021
issued by the respondent no. 2
(Contained in Annexure No. 5) to the
writ petition.
II. Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the respondents to
furnish the correct statement of
account and the calculation sheet to
the petitioner before recover the loan
amount and the loan amount may be
recover in easy installment after
calculated the simple interest and
permitted to deposit in the respondent
bank."
3. On the last occasion, learned counsel for
petitioner had submitted that amount mentioned in the
recovery citation is many times more than what
petitioner is liable to re-pay to State Bank of India.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
was asked to get instructions in the matter. Today, on
instructions, he submits that petitioner had taken four
loans and he was guarantor in respect of other two
loans which his son had taken from the Bank. He
submits that amount indicated in the recovery citation
is in respect of all the six loans.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
however, submits that the amount indicated in the
recovery citation is not correct and petitioner is liable to
pay lesser amount.
6. It is not in dispute that petitioner and his
son had taken loans from S.B.I., therefore, in case of
default, lending bank is well within its right to proceed
for recovery of the outstanding amount. Thus, no
interference with the recovery citation would be called
for.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner wants to enter into One Time Settlement
of the outstanding dues. He, therefore, submits that
petitioner may be permitted to submit a proposal for
One Time Settlement to the respondent-bank.
8. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that
if petitioner submits a proposal, the same shall be
considered as per R.B.I. guidelines expeditiously.
9. Having regard to the facts & circumstances
of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) Petitioner shall approach the Competent
Authority in the Bank by submitting a proposal, within
48 hours.
(ii) Petitioner shall be supplied copy of statement
of account/calculation sheet by concerned branch of
the bank, within 72 hours.
(iii) The Competent Authority in the Bank shall
consider and decide petitioner's proposal, as per law,
within one week.
(iv) Till decision is taken on petitioner's proposal
or for a period of ten days, whichever is earlier, no
coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
10. Let a certified copy of this order be issued
within 24 hours.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Arpan
