HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 330 of 2009 (M/S) Sazeed Hasan …. Petitioner .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents None for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Punjab National Bank. 8th June, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. L.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank are present. The entire case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is covered by the Loan Waiver Scheme, 2008 of the Central Government and inspite of the fact that the petitioner is covered under the said loan waiver scheme, the respondents have issued recovery citation dated 28.1.2009 for recovery of loan which was given to the petitioner. In its counter affidavit, however, which has been filed by the respondent-Bank, in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, it has been submitted that the loan which was given to the petitioner was not for the agricultural purposes but was given to the petitioner for transportation purposes under Khadi Village and Industries Commission Margin Money Scheme. In fact, the loan which was given to the petitioner was given under a scheme of Khadi Village and Industries Commission which is apparent from the letter dated 16/17-10-2002 of the Director, Khadi Village and Industries Commission to the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank. It is, hence, clear that the 2 loan which was given to the petitioner was for rural transportation under the Khadi Village and Industries Commission Margin Money Scheme and it is not an agricultural loan, whereas only those loans have to be waived which were given for agricultural purposes. The word “agricultural loan”, etc. has also been defined in the Scheme. A perusal of the same also shows that the purposes for which the loan was taken by the petitioner were not for agricultural purposes. Writ petition is, therefore, entirely misconceived and is dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court is also vacated. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 8.6.2009 Avneet