IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 116 of 2011. Rajeev Gaur son of Late Mangat Ram Gaur … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and three others. …Respondents. Mr. Raman Kumar Sah, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sushil Vashist, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, 2& 3. Mr. K.K.Tiwari Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4- Bank. Date January 14, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 16-1-2011 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition). According to the petitioner, he applied for loan to the tune of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the State Bank of India, Branch Kotdwar (Pauri Garhwal) for running a shop, which was duly insured with New India Assurance Company Limited Ranipur Haridwar. The petitioner claims that he made a report to the police station concerned regarding theft in his car. When the loan amount was not repaid to the Bank, the impugned recovery citation (Annexure-7 to the petition) has been issued against the petitioner. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation along with recovery charges in easy instalments. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted that the respondent no.4-Bank would have no objection if the entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation is paid by the petitioner in not more than 2 six equal quarterly instalments and the first instalment being paid by 15th day of March, 2011. In the above and circumstances of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to direct the petitioner to repay the entire outstanding amount under the impugned recovery citation (Annexure No. 7 to the petition) along with recovery charges before the recovery officer-Tehsildar Kotdwar (respondent no.3) in six equal quarterly instalments. The first quarterly instalment shall be payable by 15th day of March 2011. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation (Annexure-7 to the petition) in six equal quarterly instalments before the recovery officer- respondent no.3-Tehsildar Kotdwar along with recovery charges etc. The first quarterly instalment shall be payable by 15th day of March 2011 and the subsequent instalments shall fall due by the 15th day of the month after every three months thereafter. It is made clear that in case the petitioner commits a default in payment of any of the instalments, as directed above, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the entire outstanding amount from the petitioner in lump-sum. Accordingly, the impugned recovery citation issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-7 to the petition) shall not be given effect to by the respondents. It is provided that the petitioner may approach to the Insurance Company concerned in respect of the alleged loss of articles in the theft, if the articles were insured. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP Vacation Judge