2025:UHC:5963 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1936/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the award dated 21.03.2025 passed by Permanent Lok Adalat, Haridwar in Miscellaneous Case No. 10 of 2021, whereby petitioner’s application filed under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was rejected. 3. Petitioner took a Gold Loan of ₹2,47,650/- from Muthoot Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lender”) on 16.05.2020. Dispute arose between petitioner and Lender regarding rate of interest. Petitioner approached Permanent Lok Adalat by making an application in which she alleged that while granting loan, she was told that rate of interest is 0.86 percent per month, however, she was charged interest at the rate of 1.83 percent; benefit of moratorium on interest, imposed by Central Bank, was not given to her, as per the guidelines issued by Central Government during lockdown, no interest is chargeable on any loan by a Bank or Financial Institution, yet Lender charged interest, which is contrary to the guidelines. 4. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat, however, rejected the application as without any substance. 5. Before this Court, Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner 2025:UHC:5963 relies upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 511 and submits that Lender acted contrary to the said judgment by charging interest on interest, during the period of moratorium. He, however, was not able to substantiate the allegation that moratorium was violated by respondent. Learned Senior Counsel contended that interest on interest was charged during lockdown enforced in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic, however, in the application made by petitioner before Permanent Lok Adalat, there is no whisper that interest on interest was charged during lockdown. 6. In the application, filed by petitioner before Permanent Lok Adalat, she had contended that during lockdown also interest was charged on the loan amount, which is contrary to the moratorium. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, however, could not show any Circular or Order issued by Reserve Bank of India or Central Government, in support of the contention that interest at the agreed rate could not have been charged during lockdown. 8. Petitioner had made number of allegations in different paragraphs of her application filed before Permanent Lok Adalat, but she was not able to substantiate those allegations and she could also not prove that any Circular or Order issued by the Competent Authority was violated by the respondent. Learned Permanent Lok Adalat has given valid reasons for rejecting petitioner’s application. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the 2025:UHC:5963 petitioner although relied upon the judgment i.e., Small Scale Industrial Manufacturers Association (supra), however, in the humble opinion of this Court, the principle laid down in the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner was not able to demonstrate, how the said judgment is applicable to the case in hand. Thus, any interference with the impugned award would not be warranted. 10. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.07.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08 b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DAC F4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.10 23:32:36 -07'00'