1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.973/2005 Ashok Kumar vs State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER:8.5.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Mukesh Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr.SG Ojha, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner's some arrears were not paid and, therefore, he approached the helpline of Rajasthan Patrika but the said arrears was not paid actually to the petitioner and the arrears were directly deposited against the loan amount of the petitioner taken from the bank. It has been done because of the malafide of the respondent no.3 who developed a grudge against the petitioner because the petitioner approached the higher authorities for release of arrears. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner never gave consent to the department for making payment to the banks. It is also submitted that the petitioner, before that, was paying the dues and instalment in time to the banks from which petitioner took the loan. Reply has been filed by the respondents nos. 1 and 2 pointing out that the respondent received a notice dated 24th 2 Sept., 2003 from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Sojati Gate Branch, Jodhpur requesting the department to make the payment of the loan taken by the petitioner because of the reason that the loan was given on undertaking furnished by the employer-respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that whatever amount has been paid directly to the banks by the respondents was deposited against the due amount of the loan taken by the petitioner. So far as contention of the petitioner that there was no consent given by the petitioner to pay the amount directly to the bank is concerned, that is absolutely erroneous in view of the fact that employer gave undertaking for the loan amount and, therefore, he was under obligation to pay any dues without obtaining any further consent of the petitioner. When the amount has been deposited against dues of the loan taken by the petitioner himself, this Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-