Bihari Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2849 UK

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
               NAINITAL
             Writ Petition (M/S) No.2666 of 2023

Bihari Lal                                             ....Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Others                     ....Respondents

Present:-
             Mr. Deep Chandra, Advocate for the petitioners.
             Mr. K.K. Sah, Additional C.S.C. for the State.
             Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no.3/the
             Bank.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to recovery

notice dated 01.08.2023 issued by the respondent no.2,

Tehsildar, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year

2015, he took a loan of Rs. 8 Lakhs from the respondent no.3.

He could not repay the loan amount due to COVID-19

pandemic. Now, the recovery notice has been issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner had admittedly taken the loan, but he

wanted to repay it after retirement, which was due in the year

2016. But, unfortunately, he did not get his pensionary

benefits due to some disciplinary proceedings and the matter

is still in litigation. He would submit that he needs some time

to repay the loan.

5. Admittedly, the loan had been taken and the

liability is admitted. What is the financial condition of the

petitioner, when he took the loan? What is his capacity today?

What are the financial resources of the petitioner? they may

not be evaluated before this Court and even there is no

material to evaluate the financial condition of the petitioner.

Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference and

the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

6. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

7. However, if the petitioner intends to deposit the

loan, he may very well approach the respondent no.3/ the

Bank, not by mere words, but by depositing substantial

portion of the dues. Once it is done, and the petitioner seeks

time, this Court has no doubt that the respondent no.3/the

Bank would consider the request within four corners of the

law.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 25.09.2023 Ravi Bisht