Naina Tamta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation no.421135 dated â€" 29.04.2021 (Annexure No.2

to this writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 i.e. Tehsildar, Bageshwar, District Bageshwar.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing respondent nos.2 & 3 not to recover the amount of loan in lieu of

impugned recovery citation no.421135 dated 29.04.2021 and not to take any coercive measure against the petitioner.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing respondent nos.3 to fix the easy installment of the loan amount

waiving the recovery charges.

III. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction of any nature which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the

case.â€​

In a nutshell, the challenge given by the petitioner is to the recovery proceedings, which has been resorted to by the respondent bank for the

purposes of recovering an amount of Rs.3,18,679/-, which was a financial assistance, which was extended to the petitioner by way of a cash credit

limit.

Initially, the amount fell due on account of the commission of the default, and non remittance of the amount, the recovery citation was issued way

back on 30.01.2017. The said recovery citation dated 30.01.2017, was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a writ petition being WPMS No.337

of 2017, “Smt. Naina Tamta Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersâ€, wherein, the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment of

08.03.2017, had permitted the petitioner to deposit the amount sought to be recovered in pursuance to the Recovery Citation dated 30.01.2017, and

was made payable in easy installments, as directed therein.

Admittedly, the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner till date, on account of the recurring default committed by the petitioner, the

respondent Bank had no other options, except to have resorted to the recovery proceedings, and as a consequence thereto, the Recovery Citation

being Citation No.421135, dated 29.04.2021, has been issued for the recovery of the amount, as already detailed above.

The writ courts which are the courts of equitable jurisdiction, can only extend a solace to the litigants, who approaches the Court with his bonafides

by expressing his inability to deposit the amount, and that too fixation of the amount of the installments, which is otherwise governed by the terms of

the loan, the High Court can venture over it for fixing installments only, subject to the condition that the respondent Bank gives a consent for fixation

of the installments. Availing that opportunity, the petitioner has already filed an earlier writ petition being WPMS No.337 of 2017, “Smt. Naina

Tamta Vs. State of Uttarakhand & othersâ€, which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 08.03.2017, and

for the last more than four years, the petitioner has not complied with the directions given in the judgment of 08.03.2017. Hence this writ petition will

amount to be a second writ petition for the same cause of action, which is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed.