High CourtsSingle Bench

Satyapal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 12 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 UK CK 0073

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3019 Of 2017
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 339 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 08.11.2017 of Rs. 40,54,730/- (Rupees Forty

Lac fifty four thousand seven hundred thirty only) twenty six thousand and twenty five only) issued by the Tehsildar Rookee and Assistant Collector

Roorkee. (Annexure No. 10).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the bank officials to fix reasonable installment of the loan amount to be paid

after giving benefit of the existing schemes and after providing all the documents and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2.

It transpires that petitioner had taken loans from as many as seven different banks. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the recovery certificates

issued by the concerned Banks, one consolidated recovery citation has been issued by Tehsildar, Roorkee, District Haridwar against the petitioner.

3.

This Court vide order dated 08.12.2017 had provided that in case, petitioner deposits a sum of ₹10.00 lakh in the Registry of this Court on or before

29.12.2017, no coercive action shall be taken against him pursuant to the impugned recovery citation.

4.

Petitioner filed a miscellaneous application (CLMA No. 15581 of 2021) for release of the amount deposited by him in terms of order dated

08.12.2017 Annexure No. 2 to the said affidavit indicates that petitioner has deposited a sum of ₹10.00 lakh with the Registry on 29.12.2017.

5.

Admittedly, petitioner has taken loans from different banks, therefore, he is bound to repay the amount taken as loans with interest. Thus, there is

no scope for interference of this Court with the impugned recovery citation.

6.

Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to remit the amount, including interest, if any, deposited by the petitioner

in terms of order dated 08.12.2017 to Tehsildar Roorkee, who shall adjust the said amount towards the total amount to be recovered from the

petitioner, as per recovery citation.