Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1634 (ALL)

RAM NEVAJ v. STATE OF U. P.

2011-07-08

RAJESH CHANDRA, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2011
JUDGMENT : S.P. MEHROTRA and RAJESH CHANDRA, JJ. – Pursuant to the order dated 9.3.2011, the present writ petition has been placed alongwith the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2004 filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 9.2.2004. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition making the following prayers: "I. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recovery proceeding against the petitioner pending before respondent No.3 in pursuance of list of defaulters dated nil (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition) and cited dated 12.11.2010 issued by respondent No.3 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition). II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner regarding this recovery. III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the circumstances of the case. IV. A ward the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner against the respondents." 3. It appears that the petitioner took loan-in-question from the respondent No.4-Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. in the year 2000. 4. The petitioner committed default in payment of the said loan-in-question. Consequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. A citation dated 29.1.2004 was issued to the petitioner in this regard. 5. The petitioner filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2004, inter alia, praying for quashing the said citation dated 29.1.2004. 6. This Court by the order dated 9.2.2004, disposed of the writ petition giving the following directions. Relevant portion of the said order dated 9.2.2004 is reproduced below: "Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nripendra Mishra appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Standing Counsel. By consent of parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without inviting counter-affidavit. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned citation notice dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that petitioner has taken a loan Rs. 2,50,000.00 from respondent No.3 for purchasing a tractor. Petitioner committed default, subsequently citation notice was issued for outstanding amount alongwith the interest. Challenging the recovery proceeding, the petitioner has come-up in this writ petition. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that petitioner has taken a loan Rs. 2,50,000.00 from respondent No.3 for purchasing a tractor. Petitioner committed default, subsequently citation notice was issued for outstanding amount alongwith the interest. Challenging the recovery proceeding, the petitioner has come-up in this writ petition. The Counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner being poor person is unable to deposit the entire amount in one stroke and in case tractor and agricultural land of petitioner is auctioned and sold, the source of livelihood of the petitioner will come to an end. The Counsel for the petitioner further prayed ~hat the petitioner is ready to clear of the entire outstanding amount along with up to date interest in easy installments. The Counsel appearing for the Bank has submitted that he has no objection if the petitioner clears of the entire outstanding dues along with interest within time fixed by this Court. I have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner accepts his liability of entire outstanding amount and is ready to deposit the entire amount. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions : (1) The entire outstanding amount against the petitioner which is subject matter of recovery along with upto date interest, shall be cleared of by the petitioner in five equal instalments. (2) The first instalment shall be paid before 31.3.2004, which shall be deposited with respondent No.3. (3) The second, third, fourth and fifth instalments shall be payable on 30.6.2004, 30.9.2004, 30.12.2004 and 30.3.2005 respectively. (4) On depositing of the first instalment, the tractor of the petitioner, if seized and not already auctioned shall be released in favour of the petitioner but the attachment of the tractor shall continue. (5) The petitioner will liable to pay recovery charges, if attachment, auction or sale has made in pursuance of recovery proceedings. However, in case only citation has been issued by the respondents, no recovery charges shall be payable. The recovery charges if payable by the petitioner shall be deposited with the Bank alongwith the last instalment, which shall be remitted by the Bank to concerned Collector. (6) Subject to compliance of this order recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by impugned recovery shall be kept in abeyance which in event of any default stand revived. The recovery charges if payable by the petitioner shall be deposited with the Bank alongwith the last instalment, which shall be remitted by the Bank to concerned Collector. (6) Subject to compliance of this order recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by impugned recovery shall be kept in abeyance which in event of any default stand revived. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly." 7. It appears that the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions laid down in the said order dated 9.2.2004 in regard to repayment of the loan-in-question. Consequently, recovery proceedings in respect of the loan-in-question have been revived. A citation dated 12.11.2010 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) has been issued in this regard. 8. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, praying for quashing the said citation dated 12.11.2010. 9. As noted above, on account of failure of the part of the petitioner in complying with the conditions laid down in the said order dated 9.2.2004 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition regarding repayment of the loan-in-question, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner have been revived. 10. Thus, the subject-matter and the cause of action of the present writ petition as well as the subject-matter and the cause of action of the earlier writ petition disposed of by this Court are the same, namely, the recovery of the loan-in-question. 11. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is he second writ petition in regard to the same cause of action, and in thus, not maintainable. 12. The present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable, and the same is accordingly dismissed on the said ground. Petition Dismissed.