Bihari Lal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this petition is made to recovery notice dated 01.08.2023 issued by the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2015, he took a loan of Rs. 8 Lakhs from the respondent no.3. He could not repay the loan amount due to COVID-19 pandemic. Now, the recovery notice has been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had admittedly taken the loan, but he wanted to repay it after retirement, which was due in the year 2016. But, unfortunately, he did not get his pensionary benefits due to some disciplinary proceedings and the matter is still in litigation. He would submit that he needs some time to repay the loan.

Admittedly, the loan had been taken and the liability is admitted. What is the financial condition of the petitioner, when he took the loan? What is his capacity today? What are the financial resources of the petitioner? they may not be evaluated before this Court and even there is no material to evaluate the financial condition of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

However, if the petitioner intends to deposit the loan, he may very well approach the respondent no.3/ the Bank, not by mere words, but by depositing substantial portion of the dues. Once it is done, and the petitioner seeks time, this Court has no doubt that the respondent no.3/the Bank would consider the request within four corners of the law.