Gopal Singh Puna vs District Magistrate, Bageshwar & Ors

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

There is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel appearing for respondent

no.3-Bank through video conferencing.

Petitioner has challenged a recovery citation issued by Tehsildar, Bageshwar for recovery of Rs. 12,61,928 + other charges. It transpires that

petitioner took an agricultural loan for establishing of a dairy from Canara Bank, Branch Bageshwar (respondent no.3 herein). Bank issued a recovery

certificate, pursuant to which, Tehsildar has issued impugned recovery citation, which is under challenge in the writ petition.

Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 05.02.2021, granted protection to the petitioner, subject to the condition that he shall deposit a sum

of Rs. 1.00 Lakh within 15 days. Since petitioner could not deposit the said amount, therefore, on his request, time for depositing sum of Rs. 1.00 Lakh

was extended till 24.03.2021 vide order dated 04.03.2021.

A Misc. Application being IA No.3/2021 has been filed on behalf of respondent Bank, supported by an affidavit. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it

has been stated that despite two opportunities, petitioner has not deposited the amount of Rs. 1.00 Lakh, as directed by this Court. It is further stated

that on account of interference made by this Court with the impugned recovery citation, Tehsil authorities has returned the recovery citation to the

bank.

There is no dispute that petitioner has taken a loan amounting to Rs. 9.00 Lacs from the respondent bank. In para 8 of the writ petition, petitioner

has stated that he is ready to repay the balance loan amount but needs some breathing time. However, from the conduct of the petitioner, as discussed

above, it appears that petitioner has no intention of repaying the loan. Petitioner is bound by the conditions stipulated in the loan agreement. Thus, there

is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim orders dated 05.02.2021 and 04.03.2021 stand vacated.