IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2009 (MS) Sharad Chandra Pande …….Petitioner. Versus The Collector Nainital and others. …Respondents. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 20th July, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by the Financial Institution. Admittedly the petitioner had taken a term loan of Rs. 77,70,000/- (Seventy Seven Lac Seventy Thousand) and a loan in lieu of Central Industrial Subsidy of Rs. 20,95,000/- (Twenty Lac Ninety Five Thousand) from respondent no. 3 “Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of U.P. (PICUP) Ltd” (from hereinafter referred to as “PICUP”), which according to the Corporation has not been paid. Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for PICUP has very fairly submitted before this Court that in case the petitioner applies for one time settlement, the same shall be considered. The petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to approach PICUP in respect of one time settlement, which shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, 2 preferably within a period of two months. Meanwhile, all the proceedings pertaining to the recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the matter regarding one time settlement is decided. It is expected that the respondent no. 3 shall provide the entire statement of accounts to the petitioner so that the settlement be reached. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.7.2009 Rathour