Ram Dularey vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner questioning the validity of recovery proceedings in pursuance of notice dated 03.06.2010.

In the present case in the year 1986-87 Petitioner had applied for grant of agricultural loan to purchase diesel engine, and a sum of Rs. 11,000/-was sanctioned. Petitioner submits that on different dates he deposited a total sum of Rs. 18,340/-. In such a situation and in this background, notice issued by the bank is unsustainable, and at this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Adeel Ahmad Khan, contended with vehemence that in the present case on different dates the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 18,340/-as against Rs. 11,000/-, which was taken by him as loan. In such a situation and in this background, the demand made from the Petitioner is unjustifiable.

Countering the said submissions, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, representing Respondent No. 3, on the other hand contended that loan in question was disbursed in the year 1986-87, and thereafter as per pass book appended, after a long gap, amount in question had been deposited, which is clearly mentioned therein, and in this background, the amount demanded is due and no interference be made.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which emerges in the present case, is that a sum of Rs. 11,000/-had been advanced to the Petitioner by way of agricultural loan to purchase diesel engine. After the said amount had been disbursed to the Petitioner, as per schedule fixed by the bank repayment had not been made, rather the Petitioner in his turn on 26.04.1989, 16.11.1991, 16.05.1994 and 26.09.1999 has deposited various amount towards principal as well as interest. Thereafter, as balance amount had not been paid, notice in question has been issued.

Once amount remained outstanding against the Petitioner, then the bank concerned has acted well within its jurisdiction by initiating proceedings u/s 95A of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The action which has been taken is strictly in accordance with law, and there is no short coming in the same.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 4177 of 2007, Chander v. State of U.P. and Ors. Said judgment will come to rescue of the Petitioner for the simple reason that here details which have been noted above, clearly go to show that the amount is outstanding against the Petitioner, and whatever amount had been paid by him towards principal as well as interest, qua the same entry has been made in his pass book, and after making necessary adjustment balance amount has been sought to be recovered, as such there is no fault in the recovery proceedings initiated against the Petitioner.

Consequently, writ petition, as has been framed and drawn, is dismissed.