Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2125 (ALL)

DILDAR KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-08-29

JANARDAN SAHAI

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Janardan Sahai, J.—The petitioner had taken loan from the Punjab National Bank. It appears that the petitioner had dafaulted and the bank has issued a recovery certificate. The petitioner filed a writ petition No. 23570 of 1997 which was disposed of by order dated 17.10.1997 with the direction that petitioner’s representation shall be decided by the bank by a speaking order and if the amount deposited by the petitioner is insufficient to adjust the entire amount payable by him, the bank shall afford three months, time in three equal monthly instalments. 2. The petitioner’s case is that in pursuance of this order, the petitioner deposited the dues and a no dues certificate has been given to the petitioner on 31.10.2002, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the citation and warrant of sale of the double barrel gun of the petitioner and the sale proclamation in respect of petitioner’s land for recovering Rs. 51,725/-. 3. In para 32 and 34 of the writ petition it has been stated by the petitioner that no proceeding like auction sale or otherwise were initiated against the petitioner for recovering the loan and that all dues of the bank have been paid by the petitioner directly to the bank. In para 19 of the counter-affidavit the averments are generally denied and it is stated that the petitioner failed to pay the dues but no material has been referred to regarding steps, which were taken by the State for making the recovery. The position that emerges from the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner has directly deposited the dues of the bank voluntarily. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision of this Court in Mirza Javed Murtaza v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur, AIR 1983 All 235, in which it has been held if no steps have been taken to recover the loan, the tehsil authorities are not entitled for the collection charges. The State has not shown what steps for recovery of the loan from the petitioner have been taken, therefore, demand for collection charges is unjustified. The fact that there are no dues of the Punjab National Bank against the petitioner is not disputed by the Counsel for the bank in view of the no dues certificate. 4. The State has not shown what steps for recovery of the loan from the petitioner have been taken, therefore, demand for collection charges is unjustified. The fact that there are no dues of the Punjab National Bank against the petitioner is not disputed by the Counsel for the bank in view of the no dues certificate. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned citation Annexure-9, the warrant for sale of the gun Annexure-12 and sale proclamation Annexure-13 of the writ petition are quashed. Petition Allowed. ———