IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2213 of 2008 (M/S) Palvinder Singh S/o late Amar Singh R/o Village Judka, Pargana & Tehsil Kashipur, D istrict Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner ...…………. [ Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Sub Divisional Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Cane Cooperative Development Society Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar Through its Special Secretary 3. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the auction notice dated 23.06.2008 (copy Annexure –2 to the writ petition) whereby in pursuance to the recovery citation (copy Annexure –1 to the writ petition) relating to repayment of loan, date of auction is fixed for sale of the land, owned by the petitioner. 3) Admittedly, the petitioner’s father took agricultural loan from the Cane Co-operative Development Society (respondent No. 2) in payment of which the default was committed. Recovery citation (copy Annexure –1 to the writ petition) shows that Rs. 47,095.64 is to be recovered from the petitioner Palvinder Singh, who inherited the property of his father, after his death. The impugned notice dated 23.06.2008 (copy of which is Annexure –2 to the writ petition) shows that the impugned notice was published fixing 23.07.2008 for auction of the land. Said date has already expired long back (before filing of writ petition). At this stage, this Court cannot quash the impugned notice after the expiry of the date fixed for the auction. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that easy instalments be fixed so as to enable the petitioner to make the payment of the unpaid part of the loan. Since, it is not clear whether the property has already been auctioned or not, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to permit the petitioner to make the payment in easy instalments. 5) In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No. 8729 of 2008 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) [ Dt. December 22, 2008. H.Negi