IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 851 of 2008 (M/S) Sazid Hasan, S/o Iqbal, R/o Village Kotwal, Alampur, Teshil Roorkee, District Haridwar. ….. Petitioner. Versus Collector Haridwar, Distt. Haridwar and three others. …. Respondents. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents No. 1 and 2. Date May 22, 2008 Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State- respondents No. 1 and 2. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Recovery Notice dated 2-5- 2008 issued by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) According to the petitioner he applied for the margin Money Scheme No. PLNFS/BC 13/06.0612 (D) dated 28th July, 1997 and the said scheme was approved by respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 16-10-2002 (Annexure No. 1). In pursuance of the same, the respondent no. 3 had granted Tractor Loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 3-3-2003. Subsequently, the respondent no.3- Bnk informed the petitioner that no subsidy is permissible on the loan taken by the petitioner vide letter 15-10-2003 (Annexure No.3). Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation before respondent no. 3 on 18-8-2003 (Annexure No.4). According to the petitioner, he submitted a representation before the respondent no. 4 on 15-06-2006 but no action was taken thereon. A notice was sent to the petitioner for recovery of the entire loan amount and proceedings under the U.P. Money Recoveries Act, 1972 were initiated against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation filed by the petitioner had not yet been decided by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. I have perused the record and the impugned notice (Annexure-7). No recovery citation was issued against the petitioner and by the notice (Annexure No. 7) the petitioner has been directed to make payment of the entire outstanding amount within a period of 30 days from the dated of receipt of the notice. It is a disputed question of fact whether the petitioner had availed subsidy or not. Writ Petition is not maintainable against a show cause notice. However, the petitioner may file objection against the notice issued by the Bank. If the objection is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3- Bank shall decide the same before issuing recovery citation. With the said observation, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP