Naveen Kumar vs District Magistrate And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2217 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.2224 of 2023
Naveen Kumar                                          ....Petitioner

                               Versus

District Magistrate and Another                   ....Respondents

Present:-
            Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
            None appeared for the respondent no.1.
            Mr. H.M. Raturi, D.A.G. for the State.
                            JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The petitioner challenges the recovery citation

dated 21.06.2023, issued against him.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has taken

a loan under PMEPG Scheme, which has provided 35%

subsidy. It is the claim of the petitioner that the respondent-

Bank fraudulently used the subsidy amount and only the

remaining amount was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner

was not paid the entire sanctioned amount. When the

petitioner could not repay the loan, he was issued a notice.

Thereafter, the petitioner made representations as well as

gave legal notices to the respondent-Bank claiming that he

was not given the entire loan amount, but, no action was

taken on it. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in fact, he

had filed an application to the Superintendant of Police,

Bageshwar, with regard to the fraudulent act of the

respondent-Bank.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner had taken loan, which was under a

scheme. He was to be given subsidy, which was not given. He

could not repay the loan and now recovery proceedings have

been initiated. He would also submit that, in fact, for non

grant of subsidy, the petitioner had already filed a complaint

before the Superintendant of Police and the Collector of the

District Bageshwar.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the loan was

sanctioned in the year 2013. The petitioner has been granted

loan. Now, recovery certificate has been issued. If the loan

was not fully given, the petitioner could have objected to it

and would have refused to take loan at the moment. This is

one part of the story. After so many years, the petitioner

claims that since the entire loan has not been given to him,

he desists the recovery. The recovery is being made for a loan,

which was given to the petitioner. If somebody has, in

between, embezzled or not paid the amount to the petitioner,

petitioner is always free to seek such legal action against him,

as is permissible under law. In fact, it is stated that a

complaint has already been filed by the petitioner in that

regard.

6. Having considered, this Court is of the view that

there is no reason to make any interference in this petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 09.08.2023 Ravi Bisht