Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1205 (ALL)

Sunita Rani v. State of U. P.

2016-04-04

V.K.SHUKLA, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Smt. Sunita Rani is before this Court and her grievance is that the demand notice dated 17.12.2015 be modified by dividing her outstanding amount in seven to ten quarterly installments so that she may pay the aforesaid amount as per the demand notice. Further prayer that has been so made is that during the interregnum period no coercive action be taken. 2. Accepted position is that the petitioner has defaulted in making payment of installments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and accordingly in lieu of default action is being taken. What we find from the record is that the petitioner is pointing out various difficulties in not ensuring said payment in question and is demanding installment facility for making payment of the aforesaid amount that is due. Request in this regard has also been made on 18.3.2016. 3. What we find from the record in question is that the benefit of one time settlement has been extended to the petitioner vide letter dated 17.12.2015 and as per the said benefit that has been so extended there were two stages for making deposits, the first one by 16.1.2016 the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,32,183.50 paise and secondly by 15.2.2016 the petitioner was required to deposit the same amount. Accepted position is that the petitioner has not deposited the said amount. 4. Once there has been a policy decision to extend the benefit of one time settlement and time schedule for repayment has also been fixed and accepted position is that the petitioner has not at all adhered to the said time schedule as prescribed above, then as far as we are concern, we would not like to issue any direction as has been prayed for as same would clearly tantamount to changing the terms and condition of payment schedule as well as changing the terms and condition of one time settlement. However, In case the respondents feel it fit, they may consider the request of the petitioner sympathetically for which the petitioner can approach the Property Manager of UP Awas and Vikas Parishad and it is accepted his request as made, would be considered as per the policy frame and in accordance with law, preferably within next two months. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. No order as to costs.