RAKESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up with two fold prayers (i) to quash the recovery proceedings started against him on the basis of recovery certificate issued by the Punjab National Bank, Branch Sohrauna, Khadda Bazar, District Deoria (respondent No. 4) in purported exercise of powers under Section 3 of U. P. Act No. 23 of 1972 and (ii) to quash the Citation dated May 4, 1991 issued by the Tahsildar, Padrauna, district Deoria (respondent No. 3) as contained in Annexure-VI. The Facts :

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is sole proprietor of the shop 'Verma Tyre House', Khadda Bazar, District Deoria ; his date of birth is April 7, 1972, which fact has also been mentioned in his High School certificate (photocopy appended as Annexure-1) : on October 19, 1989 a loan was advanced to him on cash credit and a Cash Credit Account No. 64 was opened by respondent No. 4 on security of tyre, rim and other goods of his shop : on July 27, 1990 respondent No. 4 through its Manager sent letter to M/s. Verma Tyre House intimating that the account has become irregular : oil coming to know about the alleged debt on 7.2.1991. he filed a declaratory suit bearing Civil Suit No. 185 of 1991 before the Munsif, Kasia. seeking decree of declaration that the alleged debt is fraudulent, illegal and void on the ground that he was minor at the relevant time ; the Munsif vide his order dated April 25, 1991 held that since the alleged debt is of more than Rs. One lac and as such, he lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and directed to file the plaint before the competent Court : against the order aforementioned the petitioner went up in appeal before the District Judge, Deoria, which was registered as Misc. Civil Appeal, which is still pending ; during the pendency of the aforementioned civil proceeding, the recovery certificate was issued ; as no relief was granted in the suit, he filed C.M.W.P. No. 9136 of 1991 before this Court for quashing the recovery proceeding : as the recovery certificate was not available and no citation was issued by the Tahsildar, this writ petition was withdrawn with the permission of this Court : since the alleged debt is not a loan or advance or grant given to him by way of financial assistance by the State Government nor was there any agreement between the petitioner and the Bank that the alleged debt is recoverable as land revenue, the provisions of the Act in question have been illegally invoked and hence the recovery proceedings including the citation are liable to be quashed.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit and the supplementary counter-affidavit respondent No. 4 has come up with following defence : The petitioner made an application for financial assistance to the extent of Rs. 1 lac on 17.10.1989 ; an affidavit was got affirmed from him that he had not taken any loan from any other Bank before the Notary Public, Padrauna in which he stated his age as 22 years : thereafter the loan was sanctioned by respondent No. 4 under the Village Development and the Eradication of Poverty Programme announced by the Union Government and the State Government under the 20 Point Programme which was adopted by it as contained in "Gramin Vikas Evam Garibi Unmoolan Men PNB Ka Yogdan para 4.3 ; accordingly he is stopped from stating anything to the contrary ; his age as mentioned in the High School certificate is not conclusive ; in his letter, in his own handwriting. dated 19.4.1990 he had admitted the then outstanding loan as Rs. 1,45,038.40 P. and deposit of Rs. 5,000 in cash by him ; on March 31. 1991 the dues of the petitioner stood at Rs. 1,25,570.40 P. ; the order was correctly passed by the learned Munsif ; on his failure to repay the loan, despite promises and assurances, the Bank had no alternative but to issue the recovery certificate against him as well as the guarantor ; as this Court was not inclined to grant any relief to him as the question of his age (minority) was disputed one. he got his writ petition dismissed as withdrawn in which he had withheld the information in regard to filing of his suit : the present writ petition is barred on account of res judicata as his earlier writ petition was dismissed without any leave to file a fresh writ petition ; the provisions of the Act are fully applicable to the loan in question ; and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with special cost.