HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1398 of 2025 (M/S) Ramesh Singh Nagarkoti ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Ms. Devika Tiwari, Advocate for the respondent no.2, through video conferencing. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the recovery citation dated 11.04.2025, issued by the respondent no.3. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken a loan of Rs. 5 Lakhs from the respondent no.2/Bank. He could not repay it. Now recovery citation has been issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a poor person; he needs time to repay the outstanding amount. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 would submit that the petition is not maintainable; the petitioner can move before the appropriate forum. 6. At it, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he seeks time to deposit the money. 7. A recovery citation has been issued for outstanding dues. This Court may not interfere in this matter. If the petitioner has any intention to repay it, the petitioner can definitely approach the respondent no.2 by expressing his intention in terms of depositing 2 some substantial part of the outstanding amount. This Court has no doubt that if it is so done, the respondent no.2 may consider the request of the petitioner for giving him some time to repay the outstanding amount. Therefore, having considered, this Court is of the view that in these proceedings, no interference is required. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 16.05.2025 Ravi Bisht