IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 719 of 2010. Paramjeet Singh S/O Gurmukh Singh. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others. …Respondents. Mr. Abdul Wahid, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.D.Upadhyay, Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-Union Bank of India. Date November 11, 2010. 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 recovery citation dated 28- 4-2010 (Annexure-5 to the petition) issued by respondent no.3. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give rebate of the eligible amount towards Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 against the tractor loan. According to the petitioner, he took a loan worth Rs. 4,10,000/- on 12-8-2004 for purchase of a tractor. The loan amount was to be paid in easy instalments along with interest and two persons stood as guarantors of the borrower. Initially the petitioner deposited the instalments but later-on, he could not pay the instalment. Ultimately, the petitioner’s tractor was seized in Tehsil. Then the petitioner deposited the amount of instalments. Subsequently, the tractor was released to the petitioner. It appears that the respondents issued recovery citation for recovery of Rs. 5,46,510/- along with other charges (Annexure No.5) against the petitioner, hence the writ petition has been filed. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the 2 entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation along with recovery charges in easy instalments. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, has submitted that the respondent no.3-Bank would have no objection if the entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation is paid by the petitioner in not more than six equal quarterly instalments and the first instalment being paid by the close of the December 2010. 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. 5 to the petition) along with recovery charges before the recovery officer-Tehsildar Kashipur (respondent no.2) in six equal quarterly instalments. The first quarterly instalment shall be payable by 31st day of December, 2010. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire outstanding amount under the recovery citation (Annexure-5 to the petition) in six equal quarterly instalments before the recovery officer- respondent no.2-Tehsildar Kashipur (Udham Singh Nagar) along with recovery charges etc. The first quarterly instalment shall be payable by 31st day of December 2010 and the subsequent instalments shall fall due by the last 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-5 to the petition) shall not be given effect to by the respondents. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP