IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.942 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.12.2009 Charandeep Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sanjeev Kumar Gupta ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.V. Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner filed CWP No.18262 of 2008 for the issuance of a direction to the respondent to consider and approve his case under the Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 to waive off the debt/outstanding loan of the petitioner and to quash the order dated 2.7.2008 passed by the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank, Branch at Rehana Jattan, Tehsil Phagwara Distt. Kapurthala, whereby his claim was rejected. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 18.11.2008 whereby order dated 2.7.2008 rejecting the claim of the petitioner was quashed and respondent No.2 i.e. The Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank, Head Office Kanjali Road, Kaputhala was directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. It is the further case of the petitioner that in purported compliance of the judgment of this Court, the respondent passed an order dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) whereby his claim was again rejected being not covered under the aforesaid Scheme. The grievance of the petitioner in this contempt petition is that once it is clearly mentioned in the agreement that one of the purposes of loan is for agriculture purpose, it cannot be said that the loan was not given to the petitioner for agricultural purposes and therefore, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was not as per the judgment of this Court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, District Manager, the Kapurthala Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Kapurthala, has been filed trying to justify the order Annexure P-3. However, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that keeping in view the observations made in para No.5 of the aforesaid judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.18262 of 2008, a fresh order will be passed by the respondent-Authorities within one month. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this statement made before this Court. This satisfied the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement made before this Court, this Court is not inclined to proceed further with this petition. Let the respondent pass a fresh order keeping in view the observations of this Court made in para No.5 of the judgment in CWP No.18262 of 2008 within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Rule discharged. However, in case the respondent fails to honour the statement made by the learned counsel today in Court, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh contempt petition. December 1, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE