2026:UHC:596 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/217/2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. along with Mr. Hargovind Pant, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.4/Bank. 4. By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned recovery citation dated 13.10.2025, issued by respondent no.2 for recovery of an amount of ₹4,96,314/- . A further writ in the nature of mandamus has been sought directing respondent no.4 to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining loan amount, after giving due adjustment of the subsidy granted by respondent no.3, in easy instalments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had availed a loan of ₹8,25,000/- from respondent no.4 under a Government of Uttarakhand scheme, namely the Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Self Employment Scheme (‘the scheme’), for the purpose of purchasing a vehicle. The loan was duly sanctioned and disbursed into the petitioner’s account in August, 2021. Since the loan was availed under a Government scheme, the petitioner was entitled to a 25% subsidy, payable upon 2026:UHC:596 completion/ adjustment of the loan amount. 6. He would further submit that the petitioner has already repaid a total sum of ₹6,55,863/- towards the loan account. However, in September, 2024, the vehicle met with an accident, due to which the petitioner suffered financial hardship and was unable to continue regular repayment of the loan. Thereafter, respondent no.4 issued a demand notice claiming an outstanding amount of ₹2,45,808/-. The petitioner approached respondent no.4 seeking permission to make part payment and to regularise the loan account, but the said request was declined and, consequently, the impugned recovery citation came to be issued. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is now ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding amount in equal instalments and, therefore, prays that the recovery citation be stayed till such repayment is completed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4–Bank vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and supported the issuance of the recovery citation in accordance with law. 9. Having regard to the fact that the loan in question was advanced under a Government scheme intended for self- employment of youth, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- in the loan account with respondent no.4 within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The remaining amount mentioned in the recovery citation shall be paid by 2026:UHC:596 the petitioner in 12 equal monthly instalments. Upon deposit of the entire outstanding amount, the 25% subsidy admissible under the scheme shall be duly released/adjusted in favour of the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, this order shall stand automatically vacated, and respondent no.4–Bank shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) Vacation Judge 20.01.2026 Mamta