HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34217 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Deepakh Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent bank and Shri K.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners - Tahir Battery Service & Trading and its proprietor Mohd. Tahir seeking following relief: "(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned citation/recovery certificate dated 30.08.2025 issued by Respondent No.3 for realizing the Loan Amount of Rupees 13,61,379/- plus interest etc (Annexure No.1 to this Writ Petition)." 3. Solitary ground pressed in the present petition is, the petitioners had obtained credit facility from the I.D.B.I. Bank under Prime Minister's Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP in short) from the year 2015-16. Against loan advanced Rs. 15,00,000/-, as on 02.09.2022, respondent bank is claiming its outstanding Rs. 13,51,379.30. Against that, the petitioners claim to have further deposited Rs. 12,03,655/-, up to 30.08.2025. 4. Instead of granting any benefit to the petitioners, the respondent bank has issued the impugned recovery certificate claiming Rs. 13,51,379.30. 5. Relying on full bench decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Gupta & Anr. vs The Collector, Kanpur Nagar & Ors., AIR (2005) Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abdul Majeed, Sufia Saba Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Deepakh Kapoor, Krishna Kant Tiwari Tahir Battery Service And Trading Nagar Palika Market And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) All 320, it has been urged, the dues, if any, cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 if the amount claimed in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/-. The respondent bank may approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent bank would object, the petitioner is a default of public money. Therefore, no indulgence may be granted in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioners were to seek revival of their application seeking One Time Settlement (OTS in short), after abiding by the normal routine conditions, the bank would consider the case of the petitioners sympathetically for the purposes of grant of benefits of OTS. 7. On such offer made, learned counsel for the petitioners states, the petitioners are also keen to clear the default, if any, subject to the bank accounting for the entire amount of Rs. 12,03,655/- already deposited by the petitioners before the recovery certificate came to be issued. Any other amount that may be found due and payable under the OTS would also be paid by the petitioners in terms of the said Scheme. 8. In view of such statement made, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the respondent bank to issue appropriate notice to the petitioners disclosing the exact amount outstanding against them as on date after accounting for all deposits that may have been made by them against the loan amount. That communication may be issued to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today. The communication would also indicate to the petitioners in clear terms, the conditions to be fulfilled by the petitioners to seek revival of the OTS application moved by them, earlier. Upon such compliance, the petitioners may file their application seeking OTS within a period of two weeks together with necessary deposit, if any. 10. Subject to such compliance, respondent bank shall process the WRIC No. 34217 of 2025 2 petitioners' application strictly in accordance with law such that the OTS claimed by them may not be denied except for reasons attributable to their conduct after passing of this order. That exercise may be completed within a period of two months. 11. For a period of three months from today, recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall remain in abeyance. October 9, 2025 Prakhar WRIC No. 34217 of 2025 3 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad