Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/136/2022 on 13 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE
13TH JULY, 2022
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 136 OF 2022
Between:
Vinay Kumar Ghildiyal and another.
...Appellants
and
State of Uttarakhand and others.
...Respondents
Counsel for the appellants. : Mr. S.S. Yadav, the learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, : Mr. A.K. Bisht, the learned Additional
2 and 5. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 : Mr. Mahendra Singh Rawat, the
and 4. learned counsel.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 866 of 2022 on 12.05.2022,
whereby the appellants' Writ Petition has been
dismissed.
2. The appellants have preferred the said Writ
Petition seeking a mandamus to the respondent nos. 4
and 5, i.e. the Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, Garhwal
Circle, New Road, Dehradun, and the District Magistrate,
Pauri Garhwal, to hear the appellants, and complete the
O.T.S. proceedings after adjusting the already paid
amount to the respondent no. 4/ bank. Consequential
reliefs were also sought by the appellants.
3. The appellants had earlier preferred a Writ
Petition, wherein they had sought subsidy from the
respondent/ bank. That Writ Petition, being Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 08 of 2022, was disposed of on 06.01.2022,
with a liberty to the appellants herein to make a
representation to the District Tourism Development
Officer, Pauri Garhwal. It was directed that, if they
make the representation within ten days, the matter
shall be placed before the concerned Committee, who
shall take a decision as early as possible, but not later
than eight weeks from the date of production of certified
copy of the order.
4. The case of the appellants, in the Writ
Petition, was that on the representation, the Committee
consisting of nine officers, which met on 25.03.2022,
took a decision that if the appellants make a One Time
Settlement offer, the same should be considered by the
Branch Officer, according to procedure, and should be
placed before the Regional Manager and the Board of the
2
respondent/ bank for consideration. The appellants
contended that, despite the said decision, their proposal
for One Time Settlement was not considered by the
respondent/ bank, and, consequently, they preferred the
said Writ Petition.
5. The Writ Petition was contested by the
respondent/ bank. The stand of the respondent/ bank -
which is also to be noticed in the impugned judgment,
was that there was no O.T.S. scheme in vogue after
31.01.2022. The decision relied upon by the appellants,
of the Committee, was of a non-statutory Committee,
and was, therefore, not binding on the respondent/
bank.
6. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants is that on 28.06.2021, the respondent/ bank
had come up with an O.T.S. scheme, which was valid
from 01.07.2021 to 31.01.2022. He submits that when
the learned Single Judge disposed of the earlier Writ
Petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 08 of 2022, on
06.01.2022, the said O.T.S. scheme was still current and
operational.
3
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellants, and perused the record.
8. As noticed above, in the earlier round of
litigation, i.e. when the appellants preferred Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 08 of 2022, they did not seek the relief of
consideration of the O.T.S. proposal. It appears that
they only sought subsidy from the respondent/ bank.
That apart, the authority of the Committee, which met
on 25.03.2022 and decided that the appellants' O.T.S.
proposal should be considered, is not clear to us. It also
appears that the said Committee was completely
oblivious of the fact that the appellants had, in fact,
been made an O.T.S. offer earlier, which they failed to
comply with. The appellants placed on the record of the
Writ Petition, the O.T.S. offer made to them by the
respondent/ bank on 31.12.2020 for Rs. 24,82,555.44/-,
entailing concession to the tune of Rs. 4,80,755.00/-.
The said O.T.S. approval took into account the fact that
the appellants had deposited Rs. 5,77,100.00 on
05.11.2020, and it stipulated that the remaining amount
be deposited by the appellants in four equal installments
between 31.12.2020 to 31.03.2021. The appellants,
4
however, did not comply with this O.T.S. offer made to
them.
9. In these circumstances, in our view, the
appellants cannot be said to have any vested right for
consideration of another O.T.S. offer by the respondent/
bank. It is also pertinent to note that the fresh O.T.S.
scheme dated 28.06.2021, on which the appellants place
reliance, stipulated that the same was applicable to
accounts, wherein the outstanding amount was to the
tune of Rs. 20.00 lakhs. However, in the account of the
appellants, the outstanding amount was beyond the said
figure. For that reason as well, the said O.T.S. scheme
could not be invoked by the appellants.
10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the
present Special Appeal, and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
11. In sequel thereto, all pending applications also
stand disposed of.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_____________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 13th July, 2022
Rahul
