Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84684 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2613 of 2025 Petitioner :- Subhash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Sisodia,Shashank Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Bhan Gupta Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajiv Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter alia with the following prayer:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 for attaching property of the petitioner and to realize Rs. 6,93,427/- + interest + recovery charges." 3. When a query was raised by the Court that as to why and how the order dated 25.11.2024 is bad in the eyes of law, it is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that he has no arguments to challenge the validity of the aforesaid order. 4. Apart from the same, the entire writ petition was drafted in ten paragraphs out of which paragraph nos. 4 to 9 are relevant, which reads as follows:- "4. That petitioner is farmer and he has taken agricultural loan of developing irrigation Rs.1,50,000/-facilities agricultural land in year 2011. 5. That petitioner has taken loan for enhancing his income but bore of the tube well was failure after 4 month and therefore, he could not increase his income and therefore, loan amount could not be repaid in regular manner. 6. That on 25.11.2024 land of the petitioner has been attached and it in restrained to alienate the property as per order passed by respondent. no.2 passed on 25.11.2024, For kind perusal original and type copy of order dated 25.11.2024 is being filed herewith and marked ad ANNEXURE NO.1 to this petition. 7. That till date property of the petitioner has not been auctioned and petitioner is in possession and he is doing agricultural operation and therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay collection charges. 8. That now one brother-in-law of the petitioner has given assurance to provide financial assistance to get rid of his loan but petitioner is not in position to repay loan amount in position to pay in single stroke and therefore, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give an opportunity to petitioner to deposit arrear amount in easy installments. 9. That petitioner is farmer and he sustained heavy financial loss due to failure of bore of tube well and, therefore, he could not repay loan amount in regular manner." 5. Apart from the same following two grounds were taken by the petitioner while filing the writ petition:- "A. Because loan of Rs.1,50,000/- was taken by petitioner from the respondent bank in the year 2011. B. Because due to failure of bore of tube well petitioner could not irrigate his crops." 6. While going through the same, the Court is more than satisfied that the writ petition has been drafted in a very casual manner apart from the same no arguments whatsoever has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner challenging the validity of the aforesaid order. 7. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the present petition is totally misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Arti Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad