Sheela Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Respondent No.2-Sh. Budhi Ram, Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shimla and Sh. Jagdeep Singh, Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3-Bank are present in person.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and the Officers present in the Court, the matter has been heard at this stage.

Petitioner feels aggrieved against the warrant of arrest issued against her on 13.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) under Section 75-A of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act') by respondent No.2, i.e. the Collector-cum-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shimla-1.

The case set up by the petitioner is that her late husband-Sh. Prem Singh had some outstanding loan liability towards respondent No.3-Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank Limited. Regarding this liability, Case No.95/2018 (Shimla Urban Co-operative Bank Limited Versus Prem Singh and others) is pending adjudication before respondent No.2. Petitioner's husband passed away on 08.08.2019, leaving behind the petitioner and their two daughters. In the loan obtained by petitioner's late husband from respondent No.3-Bank, there are two sureties/ guarantors, who are also parties to the aforesaid case pending before respondent No.2. Petitioner asserts that she has not inherited any movable or immovable property from her late husband, but is in receipt of family pension as a widow. That the sureties of the loan secured by her late husband are in better position to repay the outstanding loan amount. Be that as it may.

The grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition is to the effect that despite above factual position, no constructive steps have been taken by the respondents for recovering the outstanding loan from the sureties. The petitioner had filed her written statement/objections before respondent No.2, explaining her entire factual position & status with a request to settle the loan account. Respondent No.2 did not decide the objections and instead issued an arrest warrant against the petitioner on 13.03.2026 (Annexure P-2).

Notice of this petition was issued on 06.04.2026, when learned Deputy Advocate General was directed to have instructions from all the respondents.

The impugned warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner with directions to the Station House Officer, Dhalli, Shimla to execute the same and return the executed warrant on or before 13.04.2026. The arrest warrant also records the petitioner being a defaulter on account of arrears of land revenue amounting to Rs.2,41,810/- plus interest towards respondent No.3-Bank. The impugned warrant of arrest has been issued under Section 75-A of the Act. The said section reads as under:-

"75-A. Arrest and detention of defaulter.- (1) At any time after an arrear of land revenue has accrued a Revenue-officer may issue a warrant directing an officer named therein to arrest the defaulter and bring him before the Revenue officer.

(2) When the defaulter is brought before the Revenue-officer, the Revenue officer may cause him to be taken before the Collector, or may keep him under personal restraint or in the revenue lock up for a period not exceeding ten days and then, if the arrear is still unpaid, cause him to be taken before the Collector.

(3) When the defaulter is brought before the Collector, the Collector may issue an order to the officer-in-charge of the civil jail of the district, directing him to confine the defaulter in the jail for such period, not exceeding one month from the date of the order, as the Collector thinks fit.

(4) The process of arrest and detention shall not be executed against a defaulter who is a female, a minor, a lunatic or an idiot."

Had the warrant issuing officer, i.e. respondent No.2, cared to look into the provisions of Section 75-A of the Act, it would have been evident to him that process of arrest and detention cannot be executed against a female defaulter as also against a minor, a lunatic or an idiot defaulter. Without even looking into the provisions of the section, under which the impugned warrant of arrest was issued, respondent No.2 mechanically issued the arrest warrant, commanding the Station House Officer, Dhalli to execute the same and return the executed warrant by or before 13.04.2026. Respondent No.2, who is present in the Court, could not explain any reason for issuing arrest warrant against a female defaulter contrary to the mandate of Section 75A of the Act. Since respondent No.2 is a quasi-judicial adjudicating authority and has mechanically issued the impugned arrest of warrant against a female defaulter contrary to the legal provisions, under which the same has been professed to have been issued, it will be appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to attend the training at Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy, Shimla on any two days subject to his convenience within next two weeks. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Himachal Pradesh Judicial Academy, Shimla forthwith. It is clarified by way of abundant caution that this direction is only aimed at enhancing the efficiency & knowledge of respondent No.2 and shall not form any basis, whatsoever, for recording his performance in Annual Confidential Report.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now drawn a constructive proposal for repaying some of the loan liability outstanding towards her late husband in favour of respondent No.3-Bank, therefore, respondent No.3-Bank be directed to consider the proposal of the petitioner in a pragmatic manner and take appropriate call thereupon within a fixed timeline. The Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.3-Bank, who is present in person, has no objection for considering the proposal of the petitioner.

In view of above, since the warrant of arrest dated 13.03.2026 (Annexure P-2) has been issued by respondent No.2 contrary to the provisions of Section 75-A of the Act, the same is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.3-Bank with her proposal for repaying the outstanding loan amount. In case such a representation is so made within a week, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a week thereafter. Till such time, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioner does not make any representation within the aforesaid period, respondent No.3-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.