IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1037 of 2010 (M/S) Guruvej Singh .…Petitioner Versus Collector/District Magistrate & others ...Respondents Mrs. Pushpa Joshi and Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondents 1 & 2. Mr. K.K. Sah, Advocate for respondent no.3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery citation dated 30.04.2010 issued by respondent no.2 against the petitioner for the amount of Rs.3,18,846/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.3- Allahabad Bank, Branch Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar provided agricultural loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.75,000/-to the petitioner under the scheme of Kisan Samiti Yojna wherein the petitioner was agreed to pay the interest @ of Rs.12% on annual basis to the bank, subject to the direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The petitioner also created a charge upon his agricultural land for the repayment of the dues of the bank. The petitioner could not deposit the loan in time and till date paid only Rs.24,000/-. As per the version of respondent no.3- Allahabad Bank total outstanding dues as on 12.03.2010 2 were 3,18,846/-. When the amount was not paid, the bank was compelled to issue recovery citation against the petitioner and requested for the same to the District Magistrate. Thereafter, on 30.04.2010 recovery citation was issued by the Tehsildar, Kashipur directing the petitioner to appear before him on 07.05.2010 for making the payment of the amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at that moment financial condition of the petitioner is very bad and he is not in a position to deposit entire amount. She further submitted that in case respondents are directed to proceed further for recovering the amount, land of the petitioner will be auctioned and will be sold at through price. She further submitted that petitioner may be permitted to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest and also with recovery charges. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that seeing the conduct of the petitioner he is not entitled for any relief but if directions for installment are issued, provision may also be made for vacation of order in the event of default. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:- 3 (i) Recovery citation dated 30.04.2010 is quashed. (ii) Petitioner is directed to deposit entire amount with interest as well as with recovery charges in 5 equal installments. (iii) First installment shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 31st August, 2010. Remaining installments will be deposited by the petitioner by 15th December, 2010, 15th January, 2011, 15th March, 2011 and 15th June, 2011. In the event of default, this order shall stand vacated. Stay application no.4979 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 08.07.2010 Arti 4