IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 867 of 2008 (M/S) Deelip Kumar Bharti,S/O Shri Bhim Lal, R/O Bharti Welding Works, Gariparaw Mallital, Nainital.. …… Petitioner. Versus Collector Nainital and two others. … Respondents. Sri Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri K.K.Shah, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Bank. Date June 11, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri K.K.Shah, learned counsel for the Bank-respondent no.3 and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery citation dated 18-2-2008 issued by Tehsildar, Nainital, District Nainital. Prayer for writ of mandamus has also been made directing the respondents to furnish the details of loan dues of the petitioner and then to fix easy instalments for payment of the same. According to the petitioner, he took a loan of CC limit for business purpose to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which was granted by the respondent no.3 under the Prime Minister Employment Scheme on 23-1-2006. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 52,000/- as interest on the said amount but inadvertently the petitioner could not do transaction of money in the said account, therefore, recovery citation dated 18-2-2008 was issued against the petitioner (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, on 30-1-2008, respondent no. 3 issued a demand notice against the petitioner directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 2 3,12,755/- and on 20-2-2008, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 13,000/- and again Rs. 1,00,000/- on 6.5.2008. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the entire outstanding amount of loan along with recovery charges in easy instalments. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the respondent no. 3-Bank be directed to furnish a copy of the statement of outstanding dues to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3-Bank has submitted that the Bank has no objection if the entire outstanding loan amount is paid by the petitioner in three equal quarterly instalments and the first quarterly instalment is paid within a period of one month. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to make payment of entire outstanding amount of loan along with recovery charges in three equal quarterly instalments. The first quarterly instalment shall become due 15th July, 2008 and the subsequent instalments shall fall due on 15th day of the month after every three months, i.e. 15th October, 2008 and 15th January 2009. The learned counsel for the respondent no.3-Bank has assured that the respondent no.3-Bank shall furnish a copy of the outstanding dues to the petitioner forthwith. In case of default in payment of any of the quarterly instalments, the respondents shall be at liberty to recover the entire outstanding amount along with recovery charges in lump sum. If the payment is made by the petitioner, as directed above, the recovery citation (Annexure No.1) shall not be given effect to. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4