GANGA CHARAN Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.P. Financial Corporation to pay and release the entire sanctioned amount to it and also for restraining the Corporation from recovering the amount of Rs. 6,320.00. This writ petition was finally disposed of on 28th Feb., 1989 with a direction that the petitioner may make a representation to the General Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur who shall decide the same in accordance with law. It was further directed that till the representation was decided, the recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed. The present Contempt Petition has been filed on the ground that although the petitioner had made a representation on 9th March, 1989 and the sane has not been disposed of as yet, still the Tahsildar issued a citation on 7th Aug., 1990.

(2.) In response to the notice issued by this Court counter-affidavits have been filed on 12-11-1990 by Shri P.S. Lal, General Manager, U.P. Finance Corporation on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the representation made by the petitioner was still under consideration and the U.P. Finance Corporation was not taking any steps for recovery of the amount as per the order passed by this Court on 28th Feb., 1989. It is further stated that a recovery certificate had been sent by the Corporation to the Collector for recovery of the outstanding dues before the order dated 28th Feb., 1989 had been passed and probably the Tahsildar issued the citation in pursuance of the aforesaid recovery certificate.

(3.) I have heard Shri A. K. Gaur on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri A.N. Shukla for 0.P. No 3, I have also considered the material on the record. It is clear that the respondent Financial Corporation has not taken any steps for recovering. The amount after the petitioner had filed the representation dated 9th March, 1989, and the citation had been issued by the tahsildar in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by the Corporation prior to the filing of the writ petition and the passing of the aforesaid order. No steps have been taken by the Corporation after 9th March, 1989. The Tahsildar appears to have issued the citation in ignorance of the order passed by this Court as he was not a party to the writ petition. The petitioner has not made any averment that he had filed a copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition before the Tahsildar. There is no material on record to show that the Tahsildar, Bhognipur, had any knowledge of the judgment and order dated 28th Feb., 1989 or of the fact that the petitioner had made any representation which was under the consideration of the Corporation. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents committed any wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court.