JUDGMENT : By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order/letter dated 2-09-2023 issued by Tehsildar Haldwani, District Nainital, annexed as Annexure 8 to this petition. (ii) Issue any suitable order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deep fit and proper. (iii) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is tenant of the premises owned by the respondent no.1 Kumaon Mandal Vikash Nigam (“the KMVN”). The KMVN sent a communication dated 02.02.2023 for recovery of Rs. 1,56,69,695.00/- from the petitioner to the Collector, Nainital. This communication was marked as RC 66/22-23. to respondent no.3 Tehsildar, Haldwani. On 02.09.2023, the respondent no.3, Tehsildar, Haldwani made a communication to the Bank seeking account details of the petitioner and in that communication, the petitioner has been termed as defaulter. This communication dated 02.09.2023 of the respondent no.3, Tehsildar is impugned herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondent no.1 the KMVN had a contractual obligation; they entered into a lease deed; the petitioner is the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent no.1 the KMVN. Therefore, for arrears, if any, recovery citation could not have been issued. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 87 of 2022, Birendra Singh Bisht Vs. Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam (“the Suit”) in the court of Civil Judge, Haldwani for setting aside the communication dated 02.02.2023 made by the respondent no.1 the KMVN to the Collector, Nainital. The suit proceeded exparte, but subsequently, the respondent no.1 the KMVN appeared and exparte proceedings order has been recalled. It is argued that in between the impugned communication was made, which is bad in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the writ petition itself in not maintainable. He would submit that since the respondent no.3 the Tehsildar had received a recovery citation, he sought information from the bank terming the petitioner as a defaulter. He would submit that nothing is wrong in it. 6. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that by the communication dated 02.09.2023, the respondent no.3, the Tehsildar has simply sought an information. He would submit that nothing is wrong in it. 6. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that by the communication dated 02.09.2023, the respondent no.3, the Tehsildar has simply sought an information. It is a kind of inquiry only. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the KMVN would submit that the KMVN is a Government company. The petitioner has to make his dues good. Therefore, recovery as arrears of land revenue can be made. 8. The petitioner has already challenged the communication dated 02.02.2023 made by the respondent No.1 the KMVN to the Collector, Nainital for recovery of arrears. This communication is marked to the respondent no.3 the Tehsildar for recovery. If the respondent no.3 the Tehsildar, pursuant to directions issued to him, collected information, how can it be faulted with? The respondent no.3 Tehsildar received a communication for recovery of certain dues from the petitioner. He termed the petitioner as defaulter and sought an information from the Bank. The respondent no.3 Tehsildar has not done anything on his own. 9. Moreover, the petitioner himself has filed a suit for setting aside communication dated 02.02.2023. In the suit itself, the petitioner could seek prayer qua impugned communication. But in the instant petition, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no indulgence of this Court is required. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would press for interim relief application in the suit, but a direction may be issued that it may be decided in a time bound manner. 11. On it, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the KMVN would submit that the date fixed for hearing of the suit is 19.10.2023. He would submit that the respondent no.1, the KMVN would argue the matter on the interim relief application on that date. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also agree to it that temporary injunction application may be heard on 19.10.2023. 12. The statements given by the petitioner and the respondent no.1 the KMVN for hearing of temporary injunction application in the suit on 19.10.2023 is taken on record. 13. In view of it, the Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. The petition is dismissed with the observations as made hereinbefore.