Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1314 (ALL)

Sarvan Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2011-05-24

RAJESH CHANDRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2011
JUDGMENT The petitioner took Cash Credit Facilities from the respondent no.2- Syndicate Bank, Branch Farrukhnagar, Ghaziabad. The proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were initiated by the respondent no.2- Syndicate Bank, Farrukhabad, Ghaziabad against the petitioner. Notice dated 30.9.2010 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was issued to the petitioner. 2. Further, the Sale Notice dated 21.1.2011 has also been issued to the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner has received a citation dated 3.2.2011. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition making following prayer: (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned citation to appear dated 3.2.2011 issued by the respondent no.4 filed as (Annexure-4) to this writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ,order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover amount of Rs.4,37,590/- from the petitioner in pursuance of citation to appear dated 3rd Feb. 2011 issued by the respondent no.4. (iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iv) to award cost of petition of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted by Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Cash Credit Facility taken by the petitioner was not under any State Sponcered Scheme and, therefore, the amount due in respect of the said facility could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The citation dated 3.2.2011 was, thus, wrongly issued to the petitioner and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 states that Sri Nripendra Mishra has obtained instructions in the matter and as per the said instructions, the respondent no.2-Syndicate Bank, Farrukhnagar, Ghaziabad will forthwith withdraw the recovery certificate sent by the respondent no.2-Syndicate Bank, Farrukhnagar, Ghaziabad to the Collector concerned pursuant to which the citation dated 3.2.2011 has been issued and the respondent no.2- Syndicate Bank, Garrukhnagar, Ghaziabad will pursue the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 5. 5. In view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent no.2-Syndicate Bank, Farrukhnagar, Ghaziabad, no cause of action survives to the petitioner as the proceedings being taken against the petitioner by issuance of citation dated 3.2.2011 are being withdrawn and, therefore, no further orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Petition. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 7. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be responsible to pay the collection charges in respect of the proceedings taken under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.