M/s Guru Nanak Beverages & Company has come up through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through its partner Sardar Balwant Singh challenging recovery proceedings enarnating from outstanding dues in the two bank accounts the petitioner is maintaining in Syndicate Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad. The prayer in the writ petition is that the recovery certificate dated 14th December, 1995, should be quashed by a writ of certiorari and that a mandamus should issue that no recovery proceedings should be done through coercive methods against any of the partners of the firm inasmuch as the recovery certificate be declared illegal as it is. 2. When this writ petition was filed on 3rd April, 1996, a counter affidavit was called from the Syndicate Bank which is represented by Sri P. K. Singhal, Advocate, which has been filed. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. It may, however, be mentioned that no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate or the lahsildar, Allahabad though Sri K. S. Kushwaha, learned Standing Counsel, has appeared on their behalf. As prayed by the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. Sri K. L. Grover, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has been heard at length in support of the petition. Sri P. K. Singhal has also been heard at substantial length on behalf of the Syndicate Bank while Sri K. S. Kuswaha, learned Standing Counsel, has espoused the cause of the State officials. 4. The short facts are that the petitioner, admittedly, continued with two Bank Account Nos. 88/91 and 66/81 with the Syndicate Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the bank ). Both the accounts had over-draft facility, which is admitted to the bank. The details of the over-draft are omitted, as they are unnecessary for decision of the real dispute. The present proceedings have commenced through the recovery certificate issued by the bank, a copy of which has not been filed because, according to Sri Grover, it was not available with the petitioner while it is not disputed that those proceedings had actually been started by the bank. It may further be mentioned that no document has been filed along with the counter affidavit showing the legal basis for issuing the recovery certificate. 5. It may further be mentioned that no document has been filed along with the counter affidavit showing the legal basis for issuing the recovery certificate. 5. However, Annexure 12 to the writ petition appears to be the copy of the letter of the bank dated 13th January, 1996, addressed to the Additional District Magistrate, Allahabad, saying that a total sum of Rs. 12,22,054 plus interest and Rs. 3,78,470 plus interest are due against the petitioner under both the accounts, men tioned above. The total will be Rs. 16,00,524 plus interest. 6. The petitioner says in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that his factory in curred the wrath and displeasure of certain hoodlums on the assassination of the Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi with the result that tremandous amount of loss was suffered. It is pleaded that the Central Government came out with a scheme to help those distitutes and the banks were directed to extend helping hand to those who lost because of disturbances of 1984. The true extracts from paragraphs 7,8 and 9 of the writ petition, if summarised, would indicate that riots took place throughout the country after the sad demise of Smt. Indira Gandhi, specially in the Northern India. The Central Government issued directives to lead banks to help the affected persons through the banks concerned. The petitioners firm was also identified as an affected person vide letter dated 8th January, 1985, issued by the Bank of Baroda, that is, the lead bank. This letter was addressed to the Syndicate Bank. Under the Central Government Scheme, the major concessions announced were that the rate of interest would be reduced to 1% with effect from 1st November, 1984, to 31st March, 1992. Similarly, after 31st March, 1992, the rate of interest would be calcu lated at normal rate. It provided further that the amount would be repayable in five years instalments commencing from the date of adjustment. These concessions were announced through notification dated 3rd November, 1993, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. 7. The aforesaid paragraphs have beenreplied in the counter affidavit vide averments made in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 sand 20 thereof. The gist of the aver ments in the counter affidavit indicate that the outstanding due against the petitioner as on 1st November, 1984, in Account No. 88/81 was Rs. 1,48,414. 7. The aforesaid paragraphs have beenreplied in the counter affidavit vide averments made in paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19 sand 20 thereof. The gist of the aver ments in the counter affidavit indicate that the outstanding due against the petitioner as on 1st November, 1984, in Account No. 88/81 was Rs. 1,48,414. 15 p. while in Account No. 66/81 was Rs. 83,560. 75 p. The averments made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of writ petition have not been denied. It is said that the petitioner has been given credit of the sum of Rs. 3,42,100. 10 P. as "interest-subsidy-Scheme" permitted the bank to do and the said credit was given on 8th June, 1994. The petitioner was intimated the exact position through the letter dated 8th September, 1994, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is, however, said that the said amounts indicated in the said letter to not include interest. 8. In paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, a pleading exists which has to be specifically brought on the record, which reads as under: "the Bank as per the latest circulars, issued by the Reserve Bank of India has to maintain two accounts (i) Real account (ii) Shadow account (the real account does not have up-to-date interest while the shadow account has up-to-date interest) for accounts which are highly overdue and considered non-performing assets. The petitioner has not paid any money toward principal or interest since 1981 and the account was highly overdue. The petitioner was informed the real account but subsequently he was also informed the shadow account. " 9. At this stage, it would be convenient to refer to the document (Annexure 3) referred to above. It is mentioned in the said document that the outstanding balance in Account No. 66/81 was Rs. 2,76,695. 90 P. while in Account No. 88/81, it was Rs. 2,24,523. 05 P. After quoting this, it is mentioned that "as per the captioned scheme interest is now to be charged in your accounts (one per cent per annum (simple) from 1 November, 1984 or date of grant of the advance whichever is later and upto 31st March, 1992. The balance as on 31st March, 1992 in your various accounts after charging the interest as above worked out as under : Account No. /81 Rs. 2,72,486. 90 Account No. /81 Rs. 1,99,314. 05" 10. The balance as on 31st March, 1992 in your various accounts after charging the interest as above worked out as under : Account No. /81 Rs. 2,72,486. 90 Account No. /81 Rs. 1,99,314. 05" 10. Thereafter, it is said in the letter that "the balance outstanding in your various accounts as on 8th June, 1994, are as under: Account No. /8 IRs. 66,526. 30 Account No. /81 Rs. 92,592. 55. . . . . " 11. May be that Real account and shadow account are being maintained. In view of various admissions existing admittedly, there is no difficulty in fixing petitioners liability. 12. The Bank has made very specific averments regarding petitioners liability. For ready reference the averments made in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit may be reproduced as it is which is quoted below : "17. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition it is stated that on 1-11-84 the outstanding dues were as follows: (a) O. D. H. A/c Rs. 1,48,414. 15 (88/81) (b) O. S. L. A/c Rs. 83,560. 75" (66/81) 13. This paragraphs of the counter affidavit has been specifically admitted in the rejoinder affidavit, paragraph No. 15 thereof is quoted below: "that in reply to paragraph 17 or the counter affidavit, it is submitted that the out standing given in A/c No. ODH-88/81 were as on 31-12-84 and not as on 1-11-84. " 14. It is admitted that the interest which was and is payable prior and sub sequent to the enforcement of the "captioned- scheme", has to abide by Reserve Bank rates and agreement of the parties. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is force in the argument of the Banks Counsel Sri Singhal that the amounts of Rs. 66,526. 30 P. and Rs. 92,592. 55 P. are not the total outstanding amount. 16. A reference should be made now to the petitioners letter dated 8th Septem ber, 1994, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. This contains clear admission of the petitioner, which, for ready reference, has to be quoted here as under : You will appreciate that the date of adjustment in our case is 7-6-94 (As admitted by you self in the above referred letter ). This contains clear admission of the petitioner, which, for ready reference, has to be quoted here as under : You will appreciate that the date of adjustment in our case is 7-6-94 (As admitted by you self in the above referred letter ). Thus we are liable to pay interest from the date of adjustment i. e. 8-6-94 and not from the date immediate after rebate. " The scheme of the Government is very clear that effective date of charging the interest at normal rate is the date of adjustment which admittedly in our case is 8-6-94. Therefore, we are ready to abide the clause of the scheme and as an obedient citizen we agree to pay with in five year with normal rate of interest from 8-6-94 only. Please let us know the date and time for compliance on any convenient date. " In view of what has been quoted above, three things have been admitted by the petitioner. They are - (1) that the liability to pay the normal rate interest should begin from 1994; (2) that the period before that which is to be covered under the scheme should get benefit of the scheme of the petitioner; and (3) that the petitioners are ready to negotiate and settle the dues to pay off the liability within five years. There is force in the argument of Sri K. L. Grover that after this offer was made, a clear cut demand should be extended to the petitioner, which, according to him, was never made and instead citation has been issued. But, on the factual front, the argument of the learned Counsel for the bank is that the petitioner never approached the bank, never went to negotiate and see the account and has not paid any amount in the recent past. Therefore, there should not be any indulgence of this Court. 17. Giving the courts anxious consideration to the entire controversy, it is obvious that the petitioners offer in pursuance of the letter of the bank must be given a chance. However, a proceeding for recovery under the public moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act can be initiated only in the circumstances mentioned in Section 3 thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken a loan in the year 1981 and in the year 1984 under the over draft facilities. The petitioner suffered damages because of rioting. However, a proceeding for recovery under the public moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act can be initiated only in the circumstances mentioned in Section 3 thereof. Admittedly, the petitioner had taken a loan in the year 1981 and in the year 1984 under the over draft facilities. The petitioner suffered damages because of rioting. Benefit of the scheme has to dwell upon the petitioner only from its enforcement. Consequently, recovery proceedings in the event of petitioner not paying may proceed under the normal mode by filing suit if and when initialed. It would be open to the petitioner to approach the bank and its officers to fix instalments by which the entire outstanding amount may be paid and cleared by the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, the citation or the recovery certificate is sued under the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act cannot be sustained and have to be quashed. 18. A writ shall, therefore, go to the record in order to make the recovery certificate as well as the citation, if issued, non-effective and no recovery proceed ings shall be initiated in pursuance of the said recovery certificate and citation, if any. 19. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition of disposed of. .