Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85381 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16325 of 2025 Petitioner :- Suman Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Mishra,Ashish Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the auction notice dated 28.04.2025 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karchana, Prayagraj. 3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that petitioner has taken a loan of Rs.2,25,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- from the respondent no.3 in the year 1999. Since the aforesaid money was not deposited, notices were issued to the petitioner dated 15.11.2006, 30.06.2008 and 24.09.2010. Against which petitioner has preferred a petition before this Court being Writ C No.38585 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2024. The order dated 22.11.2024 is reproduced herein below :- "1. Heard Sri Arun Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the U P Cooperative Gram Vikas Bank-respondent. 2. The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing the notices dated 15.11.2006, 30.6.2008 and 24.9.2010 issued by respondent no.2 and all consequential action arising out of these notices. 3. The Stamp Reporter of this Court has reported laches of 5069 days in filing the present petition. 4. On a pointed query as to how such laches of 14 years have been explained, learned counsel for the petitioner could not reply the same and sought to argue the matter on merit. 5. Perusal of paragraph nos.8, 9 and 10 of the present petition shows that the petitioner has clearly accepted the receipt of the impugned notices in the years 2006, 2009 and 2010, to deposit the due amount. The petitioner has not averred a single word as to how he has explained such laches of 14 years. 6. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain the present petition on the ground of laches. 7. Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed." 4. After the aforesaid order was passed, petitioner has chosen to file arbitration case being Case No.39 of 2022 in the Commercial Court, Prayagraj, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was rejected by the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court vide order dated 06.03.2025. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was numbered as Defective Appeal No.105 of 2025 in which notices were issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 09.04.2025. Since the loan was not paid, auction notice in question has been issued by the respondent no.2 on 28.04.2025. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner has preferred present writ petition. 5. It is stated in paragraph-17 of the writ petition that inspite of fact that notices were issued, the respondents are adamant to auction the agricultural properties of the petitioner. It is further stated in paragraph-18 that auction proceedings initiated by the respondents are malafide, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 6. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has deposited substantial amount against loan. The petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the correct dues, if any towards her loan. The respondent no.3 be directed to provide the pass book of the loan amount with complete details. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From perusal of the record it is clear that for non payment of loan taken by the petitioner with the respondent bank in the year 1999, three notices were issued against the petitioner namely notice dated 15.11.2006, 30.06.2008 and 24.09.2010. Aggrieved against the aforesaid Writ C No.38585 of 2024 was filed, which was also dismissed. Subsequent to the same, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner before the Commercial Court, which was also dismissed on 06.03.2025. Against which petitioner filed defective appeal, which is pending consideration before this Court. It is clear from perusal of the record that at no point of time any interim/final relief has been granted by this Court in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner from time to time. 9. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the recovery certificate issued by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner is absolutely perfect and valid order and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad