PRADEEP KUMAR v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT HARIDWAR
WPMS/168/2025 · 2025-03-27
Ravindra Maithani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1188 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 1188 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 168 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
District Magistrate and others ...Respondents
Present:- Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2. Mr. Ashutosh Thakral, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Soniya Chawla, Advocate, for the respondent nos. 4 and
5. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the recovery citation dated 02.03.2021 issued by the respondent no.5, Manager, District Co-Operative Bank Limited.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 5 Lakh from the respondent no.4, District Co-Operative Bank Limited, Haridwar (“the Bank”) for dairy purposes. He could not repay the loan on time because his dues were not cleared by a sugar mill. The petitioner has deposited Rs.55,000/- post issuance of recovery citation on 25.03.2023. He is still willing and ready to pay the loan amount. Therefore, some time is required.
2
4.
This Court cannot settle such kind of claims. The petitioner has taken loan. He has to repay the loan amount. What is the financial capacity of the petitioner? Whether he was able to ever repay the loan? These and many more questions require deliberation for such issues, if they fall for
consideration. In fact, what is impugned is, a certificate of recovery under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 given by the respondent no.5 certifying that the money may be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
5.
If the petitioner intends to repay the loan amount, he may express it so to the respondent nos.4 and 5 by depositing some substantial portion of it.
6.
Having considered, this Court does not make any interference at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
7.
The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
27.03.2025 Jitendra