HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 39936 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. 1. Heard Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:- i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Recovery Certificate (R.C.) dated 07/09/2026, issued against the petitioner in respect of Home Loan, whereby an alleged amount of Rs. 5,59,032.00/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, despite the fact that the petitioner has already paid the entire outstanding loan amount and has discharged his complete liability towards the respondent- Bank. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 and 4, to withdraw/cancel the aforesaid Recovery Certificate and to update the loan account of the petitioner as fully paid and closed, in accordance with the payments already made by the petitioner. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to take any coercive or recovery proceedings against the petitioner or his property pursuant to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girja Shanker Mishra, Iftekhar Ahmad, Mohd Ghaus Ali, Pratiksha Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Mishra Hansraj Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the impugned Recovery Certificate, including attachment, auction, sale, dispossession or any other coercive measure in re, in respect of the aforesaid home loan, as no legally recoverable amount remains outstanding against the petitioner during the pendency of present Writ Petition. 3. Today when the matter is taken up, preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ C No.15702 of 2026 (Hansraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) for quashing the attachment/recovery notice dated 10.03.2026. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 directing the petitioner to make payment of entire outstanding amount in installments. The order dated 27.04.2026 reads as follows:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-bank. 2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the attachment/recovery notice dated 10.03.2026 as well as seeking direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.5 to take the loan amount of the petitioner in easy installment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a farmer. The petitioner taken loan of Rs. 3,97,000/- from the respondent bank. The said facilities were duly sanctioned and disbursed by the respondent bank. However, owing to acute financial constraints and adverse circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, he could not adhere to the repayment schedule within the stipulated time. Consequently, a recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner, reflecting an outstanding liability of Rs. 4,37,197/-. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a poor agriculturist, having limited means of livelihood and no substantial source of income, and thus is incapable of discharging the entire outstanding amount in one lump sum. The petitioner is willing to liquidate the outstanding dues and undertakes to repay the entire amount in an easy installments. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner may be WRIC No. 39936 of 2026 2 granted indulgence by permitting him to clear the outstanding liability in 12 easy and reasonable installments, in the interest of justice and equity. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-bank has not opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of reasonable time to liquidate the outstanding dues, subject to the condition that the petitioner adheres strictly to the payment schedule. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the dispute, and the willingness shown by the petitioner to clear the outstanding dues, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be served by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to repay the amount in installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire outstanding amount in 12 equal monthly installments. The first installment shall be deposited within a period of one month from today, and the subsequent installments shall be deposited by the 15th day of each succeeding month. During the aforesaid period, the impugned recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. 7. It is made clear that in case of default in payment of any two consecutive installments, this order shall automatically stand vacated and the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 4. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgement, Special Appeal Defective No.470 of 2026 (Hansraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) has been filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2026. 5. It is argued by Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that concealing the aforesaid facts with deliberate and wilful intention, the petitioner has preferred the present petition, therefore, the present petition be dismissed imposing exemplary costs. 6. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph Nos.16 & 17 of the writ petition which reads as follows:- WRIC No. 39936 of 2026 3 "16. That the prayer in the earlier Writ was too ready to make the payment due to which an incorrect order has been passed due to lack of information. 17. That after the earlier Writ, petitioner has approached the respondent bank informing the same and also requested to discard the order and also not recover the unnecessary amount as already petitioner has made more payment than the Loan was taken. The copy of the Representation dated 12/05/2026 is being H.COMM filed here with and marked as Annexure No-3 to this writ petition. " 7. From perusal of the entire pleadings as well as the documents appended with the writ petition, it is clear that only word "Earlier Writ Petition" has been mentioned and no other details regarding the filing of aforesaid writ petition as well as Special Appeal Defective has been mentioned in the writ petition. 8. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully concealed the aforesaid facts while filing the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. 9. The aforesaid cost will be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks from today in the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad and place the receipt before the District Magistrate, Varanasi within three weeks failing which the District Magistrate, Varanasi will recover the aforesaid amount/cost from the petitioner as land revenue. 10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this order to District Magistrate, Varanasi forthwith. October 1, 2026 saqlain WRIC No. 39936 of 2026 4 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad