IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 246 of 2008 (M/S) Veer Singh S/o Sri Hatti Singh, R/o Bariadaulat Majhra- Khatoli, District Udham Singh Nagar. ….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand, through District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar and others. … Respondents. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri Milind Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.C. Tiwari, learned brief holder for the State-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri D.K. Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs:- a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the impugned recovery certificate/citation dated 18-5-2006 issued by the respondent No.2/ Tehsildar, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar against the petitioner(Annexure No.4) b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent further six months time may be given to the petitioner and after six months eight half yearly installment be fixed for depositing the said bank loan amount. c) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case. d) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took agricultural loan of Rs. 4,10,000/- with the respondent No.3 i.e. UTI Bank for purchasing a tractor. On 6.11.2006, the petitioner deposited Rs. 1,10,000/- before the Bank as first installment. On 20.07.2007, the petitioner deposited Rs. 44,000/- as 2nd installment and on 21-11- 2007, the petitioner deposited Rs. 50,000/- as 3rd installment in total amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- was deposited by the petitioner before the Bank. Thereafter the petitioner could not deposit the further installments before the Bank due to unavoidable circumstances. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.3 i.e. Bank, it was stated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit that the intention of the petitioner was never fair towards repayment of the loan amount and the petitioner was habitual defaulter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner was a poor farmer and due to financial constraint he could not pay the defaulted amount within a stipulated period which was granted to him. For redressal of his grievance to pay the loan in installments, he may make a representation to the recovery Officer i.e. Tehsildar, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar. If the representation is made to pay the defaulted amount, the recovery officer i.e. respondent No.2- Tehsildar, Bazpur, Udham Singh Nagar pass appropriate order on the representation. With the said direction, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications stands disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) Dated: - 18-06-2008 M.K.