Narendra Singh vs District Magistrate/Collector Bageshwar & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioner had earlier filed WPMS No. 2056 of 2020 challenging the citation issued by Tehsildar, Bageshwar for recovery for Rs. 33,61,330/-. The

said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3. 11.2020 with the following direction:- “Having regard to the willingness shown by the

petitioner to repay the loan and the consent given by learned counsel for the bank, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(I) Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-with the bank on or before 02.12.2020. (II) The remaining amount shall be repaid by the petitioner in

six quarterly installments to be fixed by the bank. (III) The last installment shall carry accumulated interest and other miscellaneous charges. (IV) It is

further provided that no recovery charges shall be recovered from the petitioner. (V) It is made clear that the above order has been passed on the

bona fide shown by the petitioner to pay the entire loan and the consent given by the counsel for the bank. However, in case of any default on the part

of the petitioner, this order will not preclude the bank from initiating proceedings for recovery in accordance with law.â€​

Now petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and call for the record

of the case and quash the impugned Recovery notice dated 11.05.2021 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the due loan amount in the

installment.

This Court vide order dated 27.05.2021 had granted limited protection to the petitioner, subject to the condition that he deposits Rs. 8,50,000/- with

the respondent bank on or before 07.06.2021. Such limited protection was granted to the petitioner in view of the concession given by learned counsel

appearing for the bank.

Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client could not deposit the sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- in terms of the order dated

27.05.2021.

This conduct on the part of the petitioner indicates that he has no intention of re-paying the outstanding loan amount. There is no dispute that

petitioner is a borrower, who took loan from Nainital Bank Ltd., and he is liable to repay the same, with interest, as per the terms and conditions of the

loan agreement.

In such view of the matter this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.