Charanjeet Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Delay of 75 days, in preferring the appeal, is not opposed by Mr. Ashish Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank; and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application is, accordingly, disposed of.

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3718 of 2018 dated 07.05.2019. The appellant-writ petitioner filed the said Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery citation dated 15.11.2018; a writ of mandamus commanding/directing respondents 2 and 3 not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner for recovery of the loan amount in lieu of the recovery citation dated 15.11.2018; and a writ of mandamus commanding/directing respondents 2 and 3 to recover the loan amount in easy installments from the appellant-writ petitioner waiving off the recovery charges.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellant-writ petitioner took a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the third respondent-Bank, which sum was deposited in his account on 28.08.2015 for Rs. 3,00,000/- and on 08.09.2015 for Rs 1,99,000/-. The said loan amount was required to be re-paid in easy monthly installments. The appellant-writ petitioner claims to have continued to make payment of these monthly installments till October, 2018, and, because of financial difficulties, in not promptly paying the later installments. The third respondent-Bank issued a recovery citation dated 15.11.2018 for Rs. 8,68,616/-. The appellant-writ petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking time to pay the said loan amount in easy installments, and to direct the respondents not to take any coercive measures against him.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Ram Kripal v. Collector, Banda and another : 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1371, observed that the Court has no power, in recovery proceedings, to grant rescheduling of the amount due and payable; a similar view was expressed by the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Chennia v. Millennium Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd and another : AIR 2005 Madras 232; the motor-cycle and tractor of the appellant-writ petitioner had been seized because the appellant-writ petitioner, whenever approached by the authorities for re-payment of the loan amount, had absconded; and the bank was agreeable to accept installments, to be fixed by this Court, subject to the condition that, if the appellant-writ petitioner paid 50 percent of the total loan amount due in the first installment, only then the motor-cycle and tractor of the appellant-writ petitioner would be released to him; and the balance amount be paid by the appellant-writ petitioner in two equal monthly installments.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing release of the motor-cycle and the tractor to the appellant-writ petitioner on condition that he paid 50 percent of the total amount, sought to be recovered, under the recovery citation dated 15.11.2018, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The learned Single Judge, thereafter, held that, in case 50 percent of the total amount was deposited before expiry of three months' period, as fixed by the Court for the first installment, the vehicles be released immediately and, thereafter, the balance amount would be paid by the appellant-writ petitioner in two equal monthly installments; and, in case there was any default in remittance of any of the two installments by the appellant-writ petitioner, it would be open to the respondent-Bank to recover the entire amount, sought to be recovered, by enforcing the recovery citation dated 15.11.2018. Aggrieved thereby, the present Special Appeal.

Ms. Charanjeet Kaur, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the conditions imposed by the learned Single Judge, for re-payment of the loan amount, are extremely onerous; the appellant-writ petitioner should, instead, have been permitted to re-pay the loan amount in convenient monthly installments; the tractor is the appellant-writ petitioner's only source of livelihood; and, if the tractor is not released in his favour, he would be in no position to earn a living, much less re-pay the balance of the loan amount, due and payable by him to the respondent-Bank.

We must express our inability to agree. The appellant-writ petitioner does not dispute that the amount, reflected in the recovery citation, is due and payable by him. It is also admitted that he had defaulted in re-payment of the monthly installments from October, 2018 onwards. The respondent-Bank was, therefore, justified in initiating proceedings to recover the balance amount due, along with the interest payable thereon.

In proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not take over the role of the Bank or re-schedule re-payment of the debt due from the appellant-writ petitioner to the respondent-Bank. Whether the loan amount should be permitted to be re-paid in installments or not, are all matters for the Bank to decide. The learned Single Judge had, in our view, shown indulgence to the appellant-writ petitioner in permitting him to re-pay the loan amount in installments.

In an intra-Court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, interference is justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal, necessitating interference.

The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.