IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 945 (MS) OF 2006 Harpal Singh S/o Sri Bhajan Singh, R/o Village Sherpur Bela, Tehsil – Laksar, District Haridwar. ............Petitioner. Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Khankpur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar, through Branch Manager. 2. The Collector, District Haridwar. 3. The Tehsildar Laksar, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. ..................Respondents. Dated: 25.07.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Sri S.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to seize and not to auction, attach and sell the tractor of the petitioner as well as not to auction, sell or attach the landed property of the petitioner situated at Village during recovery proceedings of the loan amount from the petitioner, which is the sole source of earning of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover collection charges from the poor petitioner during recovery proceedings. Briefly stated, the petitioner took an agricultural loan for purchasing a tractor of Rs 3,54,000/- in the year, 2005 and instalment was fixed for Rs. 39,333.33 annually for nine years. 2 According to the petitioner, due to shortage of rainfall in the year, 2005, 12 Bighas land could not give good result to the petitioner. When the petitioner didn’t repay the amount, respondent no. 1 sent the matter for recovery to respondent no. 2 against the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 sent a recovery order to the respondent no. 3 to recover the principal loan with interest and pursuant to that the respondent no. 3 issued a recovery citation to recover the principal loan amount with interest and collection charges against the petitioner on 03.07.2006 for a sum of Rs. 3,95,910/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to shortage of rainfall, he is unable to repay the loan amount in one time payment and he is a poor farmer. However, it will be feasible to the petitioner, if the remaining loan amount is being permitted to deposit in easy instalments. The petitioner has alleged that no account has been furnished by the Bank so as to enable him to come to the conclusion that the citation made is correct. In the case of Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra and others, AIR 2001 SC 3095 the Apex Court has observed: “Statement of accounts supplied by banks to borrowers many a times do not contain particulars or details of debit entries and when written in hand are worse than medical prescriptions putting to test the eyes and wits of the borrowers. Instances of unscrupulous, unfair and unhealthy dealings can be multiplied though they cannot be generalized.” Therefore, the Bank authorities are directed to furnish the account to the petitioner on production of certified copy of this order. 3 In view of the aforesaid, after furnishing of the Account, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire outstanding loan amount taken for tractor in eight equal four monthly instalments. The first instalment will be paid by or before 10th of August, 2006. The amount of interest will be paid in the last instalment. In case of default of any instalment, the liberty given to the petitioner to pay the loan amount in instalments shall no more be available. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of the order to be given today. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 25.07.2006 Rathour