HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1253 of 2008 (M/S) Satnam Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents. Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. C.S. Dumak, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent State. Mr. H.C. Bisht, learned counsel for respondent no. 3. 21st November, 2008 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State as well as the learned counsel for the Union Bank of India i.e. respondent no. 3. The counter affidavit on behalf of the Union Bank of India is on record. The case of the petitioner in short is that he had taken loan of Rs. 4,84,500/- from the Union Bank of India, Rudrapur Branch, district Udham Singh Nagar for purchasing a tractor for agricultural work. Since the petitioner could not paid the entire loan, he had received a recovery certificate of Rs. 5,38,688/- along with other charges on 11.06.2008, which the petitioner by means of the present writ petition seeks to quash. I have also perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union Bank of India. It has been stated, inter alia, by Sri H.C. Bisht, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to move a representation before the concerned bank and such a provision is given in the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Although the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 further states that the said representation should have been filed within a period of thirty days after receiving the notice of recovery. Under these facts and circumstances, without going into the technicalities as to the limitation for filing this representation, the Court deems it proper that the petitioner be directed to file a representation before the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India within two weeks from today and it is further directed that the Branch Manager shall pass a speaking order on the said representation of the petitioner in the light of the scheme known as Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the stay application filed by the petitioner, an interim order was passed by this Court on 28.07.2008. The said interim order passed by this Court will remain in force till the representation of the petitioner is disposed of by the concerned Branch Manager. With the aforesaid order, the writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.11.2008 Avneet