Santosh Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1355 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Santosh Verma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 29 July, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                     Writ Petition No. 2209 of 2025 (M/S)

 Santosh Verma                                                 ........Petitioner

                                      Versus

 State of Uttarakhand and Others                          ........Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Rajeev Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.
        Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

                             JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the

following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery citation dated 09.06.2025 issued by respondent no. 5 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to recover the amount of Rs. 1,92,75357 (One Crore ninety two lakh seven five thousand three hundred fifty seven rupees) along with recovery charge in easy instalments fixed by this Hon'ble Court, so that the entire amount may be repaid to the respondent Bank.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to impugned recovery citation dated 09.06.2025.

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v)

2. Registry has indicated some defects. They are ignored.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had taken multiple loans from the respondent-Almora Urban

Cooperative Bank Limited ("the Bank"), but due to COVID-19

intervention, the business could not run smoothly. The petitioner fell

sick also. She was not in a position to repay the loan. Now recovery

citation has been issued. The petitioner is ready and willing to repay

the loan in easy instalments.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that if

the petitioner is agreeable to pay the loan in easy instalments, the

bank is agreeable to that provided initially the petitioner pays some

substantial amount of loan.

5. It is admitted to the petitioner that she has to repay the

loan. In such circumstances, the Court's intervention is not at all

required and the Court should refrain to make any intervention. But

since on behalf of the respondent-Bank a statement is given that if the

petitioner comes forward with a proposal to repay the loan in easy

instalments, the respondent-Bank may consider it, provided the

petitioner deposits some substantial amount of the loan.

6. Accordingly the petition is liable to be dismissed at the

stage of admission itself while observing these statements:-

7. The petition is dismissed in limine. However, the

petitioner may approach the respondent-Bank expressing her

intention to repay the loan in instalments and while doing so, she

could also propose to deposit a substantial portion of the loan amount.

This Court has no doubt that if such an offer is made, the respondent-

Bank will consider it in accordance with law.

8. For the next seven working days, the operation of the

impugned recovery citation shall remain in abeyance.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 29.07.2025 Ravi Bisht