IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 825 of 2010 Yashpal Singh S/O Chaman Singh, R/O House No. 30/7-A, Ganeshpur, Roorkee, District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Collector Haridwar. 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar. 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. 4. State Bank of Patiyala, Branch Roorkee, through its Branch Manager. … Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Date June 02, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 4027 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery citation dated 18-5-2010 issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition). ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 3 to accept the loan amount in easy instalments. iii) To issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of petitioner. iv) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2 According to the petitioner, he took a loan of Rs. 4,55,000/- in the year 2007 from the respondent no.4-Bank and the petitioner has been paying the instalments against the disputed loan amount, but due to some domestic problems, the petitioner could not deposit the instalment with the Bank, which ultimately gave rise to the impugned recovery citation dated 18-5-2010, issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Roorkee, whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay amount of Rs. 6,94,414-52 plus other charges by 25-5-2010. The petitioner is ready and willing to pay the entire outstanding amount in easy instalments. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is ready to deposit the outstanding amount of instalments fixed by the Bank and to regularize the repayment of loan in instalments, but the respondent-Bank is not inclined to accept the payer and it is adamant to attach the property of the petitioner. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner may be given liberty to make a representation before the Recovery Officer (respondent No.3) Tehsildar Roorkee and the writ petition may be disposed of finally today. Prayer is innocuous. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation before the Recovery Officer for depositing the outstanding amount in instalments. If the representation is made before the Recovery Officer-Tehsildar Roorkee, the Recovery Officer shall decide the representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, by passing appropriate orders. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3