Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 31 (ALL)

Ashok Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-01-04

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Heard Sri Abhishek Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. At the very outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent-Bank to the effect that for the same cause of action the petitioners were before this Court by preferring a Writ Petition No.41295 of 2016 (Ashok Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others) and this Court vide order dated 01.09.2016 had proceeded to pass a detailed order wherein, installments had been fixed and as such for the same cause of action the present writ petition is liable to be treated as second writ petition. In this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to examine the record and found that the Writ Petition No.41295 of 2016 (Ashok Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others) had been disposed of with following effect: - "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent State, and Sri Himanshu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank. It is stated that petitioners have taken loan for purchase of Tractor for agricultural purposes, but the same could not be repaid as per the terms of agreement. A recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.4,07,000/- has been issued against the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed with the averment that petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the amount, in case the petitioners are permitted to do so in instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has no objection in accepting the amount in instalments. Having regard to the fact that petitioners have offered to pay the entire amount due against them, in my view, the ends of justice require that the petitioners be granted opportunity to deposit the entire outstanding amount due against them in the following manner: (i) Petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with the respondent Bank by 15th October, 2016. (ii) In case the amount, as indicated above, is deposited by the date fixed, the Tractor of petitioners shall be released, and the respondent Bank shall provide a fresh schedule for re-payment of balance amount in four quarterly instalments, and the same shall be deposited by the petitioners, accordingly. (iii) No recovery charges shall be recovered from the petitioners by the respondent authorities. (iii) No recovery charges shall be recovered from the petitioners by the respondent authorities. (iv) Till 15th October, 2016, and thereafter during period of deposit of instalments, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioners default in depositing initial amount or thereafter instalments within the stipulated time, it will be open for the respondents to start recovery proceedings against the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs." Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly submits that on account of unavoidable circumstances, the petitioners could not deposit Rs.1,25,000/- as per the direction of the Court on or before 15.10.2016. In fact the same has been deposited on 03.11.2016 which has been accepted by the respondent-Bank and as such it has been prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent-Bank to release the tractor of the petitioners. This Court is of the considered opinion that once the order dated 01.09.2016 has been passed and the petitioner could not deposit the first installment as per the direction of this Court, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to move modification application in Writ Petition No.41296 of 2016 (Ashok Singh & another Vs. State of U.P. & others). With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.