IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1447 of 2009 (M/S) Sangita Rani …Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar & others … Respondents Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for respondent no.3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery proceeding dated 08.06.2009 issued by the respondents. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any coercive actions against the petitioner for recovery. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to fix the installments for repaying the said loan. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and 2 proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner took a loan amounting to Rs.9,50,000/- for setting up an Atta Chakki named Jagdamba Gramodyog from respondent no.3/Central Bank under the scheme of the Government of India. Petitioner deposited a total sum of Rs.4,15,000/- but due to failure of Atta Chakki she was not in a position to deposit further installments. It is submitted that on 19.09.2008 a notice was sent to the petitioner for depositing of Rs.9,35,000/- within a period of 15 days. After receiving the said notice petitioner approached to respondent no.3/Central Bank and told about her financial condition. But inspite of this, respondent no.3/Central Bank initiated recovery proceeding against her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer that petitioner may be permitted to deposit entire amount within a period of two months from today and the respondent no.3/Central Bank be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery. Learned counsel for respondent no.3/Central Bank consented for the same but submitted that since petitioner has not challenged notice dated 19.09.2008 under Section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, his consent may not cause any prejudice to the proceedings initiated 3 under section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court directs that respondents shall permit the petitioner to deposit entire amount due within a period of two months from today. In case entire amount is paid, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. In the event of default in making payment by the petitioner, respondents will get liberty to proceed further in the matter. 6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.K.Bist. J,) 02.09.2009 Arti