IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 82 of 2007. Date of decision: 18.5.2009 Sh.Roop Ram .. Petitioner Versus H.P Khadi & Village Industries Board & Ors. .. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.Balwant Kukreja, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms.Rita Goswami, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sh.R.M.Bisht, Dy.Advocate General for respondents No.3 and 4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The petitioner had applied for a loan from the respondent-H.P Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Khadi Board’) and a loan of Rs.8,33,000/- was sanctioned in his favour. Out of this amount, admittedly a sum of Rs.4,21,505/- was released in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite making repeated requests, the balance amount was not released to him by the Khadi Board. The petitioner alleges that instead of releasing the balance 2 amount, the respondent-Khadi Board has started recovery proceedings under Section 33 of the H.P Himachal Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1966 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’) and a certificate of recovery of Rs.11,86,522/- has been issued to respondent No.3 for recovering this amount as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner alleges that this notice has been issued without giving any opportunity of being heard. According to the averments made in the petition, the property of the petitioner is now being sought to be sold. Hence the petitioner filed the petition. The petition was filed in January, 2007 and the learned Vacation Judge granted a stay relying on the averments made by the petitioner that no notice for determination of the amount was given prior to the issuance of the impugned notice. Reply has been filed by the Board. Alongwith the reply, a number of notices have been attached in which it is clearly mentioned what is the amount due from the petitioner. Reply was filed in March, 2007 and though more than two years have elapsed, no rejoinder has been filed. In the notices attached with the reply, the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is clearly mentioned. The petitioner never 3 challenged the correctness of the amount claimed in the said notices. Our attention has been issued by Ms.Rita Goswami, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 to annexure R/4 and other similar letters wherein the Khadi Board has asked the petitioner to submit utilization certificate for the amount already advanced to him. There is no material on record to show that such utilization certificate was ever submitted. Sh.Balwant Kukreja, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Jagjeet Singh Vs. H.P Financial Corporation and others, 1999(2), Shimla Law Cases, 88. The ratio laid down in this judgement does not apply to the facts of the present case. This judgement only provides that before recovery notice is issued, the amount due must be determined. In this case there is ample material on record to show that a number of communications were sent to the petitioner by the Khadi Board informing him as to what is the amount to be recovered from him. The petitioner never challenged the correctness of the amount stated in the said notices. Therefore, the question of any further determination did not arise. 4 We also find that the petitioner has withheld material facts from this Court. He did not inform this Court while filing the petition that he had been served with the notices, copies of which have been annexed with the reply. Because of this the petitioner is not entitled to grant of any discretionary relief. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. Stay stands vacated. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge May 18, 2009 (V.K.Ahuja) (m) Judge