Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14369 (UTT)

RAJENDRA PRASAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE, GOVT. OF U.K. DEHRADUN

WPMS/3232/2025 · 2025-11-20

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:10331 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/3232/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1, 3 & 4. 3. Mr. D.C. Mathor, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 4. Petitioner took a loan from State Bank of India, Branch Bageshwar. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record from respondent no. 3 and to quash the so called recovery citation and also to quash the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in respect to recovery of the amount of Rs.2,45,808/-. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to take decision on the application of the petitioner seeking refund of subsidy of 25% on the loan amount.” 5. Mr. D. C. Mathor, learned counsel appearing for State Bank of India, on instructions, submits that no recovery certificate has been issued against the petitioner as yet. He submits that petitioner has not informed the bank that 2025:UHC:10331 the car, which he purchased, out of the loan amount, has met with an accident. He submits that the bank is ready to reduce the agreed rate of interest on the loan account, and bank is also ready to enter into a settlement with the petitioner. 6. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the bank, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner as yet, as neither any recovery certificate nor any citation for recovery of alleged dues, has been issued. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.11.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.11.21 09:48:44 +05'30'