HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1176 of 2010 (M/S) Irfan. ……..Petitioner Versus Union Bank of India, Branch Kashipur, A nd others. …….Respondents Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate for the Bank-respondent no.1 Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State-respondent nos. 2 & 3. Dated: July 9, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Recovery Citation dated 28.04.2010 issued by respondent no.3/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar (contained as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition). 3. According to the petitioner, in the month of March, 2009 he took agriculture loan amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lac fifty thousand only) from respondent no.1-Bank and an agreement got signed for the terms of the loan. It is stated that the respondent- Bank has not served any notice before initiating recovery proceeding and after a period of one year, recovery proceedings have been initiated. It is further stated that as per the order of Tehsildar concerned, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- on 02.06.2010 towards the said loan. It is also stated that during the agriculture year 2009-10 the agriculture production was very low and meanwhile petitioner’s daughter-in-law fell ill and entire money which he earned during the year was spent on medical treatment and due to great financial hardship the 2 loan amount could not be deposited in time. It is prayed that the petitioner is not getting sufficient earning to repay the entire amount in lump sum. It is further stated that the petitioner is a poor tiller of the soil and has no other means of livelihood except the agriculture and the burden of maintenance of entire family is upon him. In the meanwhile without issuing any notice, the Recovery Citation has been issued against the petitioner on 28.04.2010, by which a sum of Rs. 2,72,524/- plus other charges are sought to be recovered from the petitioner. 4. Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to deposit the outstanding balance amount of loan in easy installments fixed by this Court until and unless the entire amount of loan is deposited. 5. Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank argued that since the petitioner has not deposited the loan amount in time, therefore the Recovery Citation has rightly been issued against him. He further submitted that in case the petitioner is permitted to deposit the amount of loan and interest thereon in installments, provision of automatic vacation of order may be made for making default of any condition stipulated by this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the undertaking given by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:- (i) The impugned R.C. dated 28.04.2010 issued by respondent no.3 is hereby quashed. 3 (ii) The petitioner is permitted to deposit the balance amount of loan with interest and recovery charges in four equal installments with the respondent-Bank. (iii) The first installment shall be deposited by 30th November, 2010. The second, third and last installments shall be deposited by 28th February, 2011, 31st May, 2011 and 31st August, 2011 respectively. (iv) In case, the petitioner complies with the directions, no coercive measure shall be taken against him. Any failure on the part of the petitioner shall amount to automatic vacation of the order. 7. Stay application (CLMA No. 5512/10) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 09.07.2010 NCM: