Kripal Singh vs State of U.P.Thru Its Secy.and Others

Vinay Kumar Mathur, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for respondentbank and have perused the record.

In compliance of the order passed in several writ petitions of similar nature, the respondentBank has formulated a policy for repayment of the loan to the investors. Such policy, which was framed on 31.7.2010, has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 58429 of 2010 by order dated 28.9.2010. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below:

"We therefore direct the respondent Bank to consider petitioner''s application for payment of the matured amount in his fixed deposit accounts, within a month, as per policy framed by the Bank. The bank will pay the remaining amount to the petitioner, as soon as the grant under the plan prepared by Prof. Vaidyanathan Committee is received."

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner is a poor man and needs money urgently because he is facing grave financial hardship.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the respondentBank shall pay Rs. 50,000/ due to the petitioner within one month and the balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner in terms of the policy duly framed by the Bank.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.