PARSADI Vs. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HARDOI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the sale proclamation dated 21.1 2004 as contained in Annexure No. 1 whereby his Tractor U.P. 30-C/1045 was sought to be auctioned pursuant to recovery of Rs. 2,22,635/- which accrued in respect of a loan advanced to him by opposite party No. 4 for purchase of a Tractor. Prior to the filing of this petition the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2121 (MS) of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 239 (MS) of 2004. In the aforesaid two writ petitions the citation dated 5.3.2003 was challenged whereby a sum of Rs. 2,66,758/- was sought to be recovered from him in respect of the same loan granted by the opposite party No. 4, for purchase of Tractor. Writ Petition No. 2121 (MS) of 2003 was finally disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 4.7.2003 with a direction to the petitioner to liquidate the entire amount due against him in instalments indicated in the said order. It appears that he did not comply with the directions given by this Court in the said order and consequently the opposite parties initiated coercive steps to recover the said amount. He again filed Writ Petition No. 239 (MS) of 2004 challenging the same citation which was made subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 2121 (MS) of 2003 In para 2 of Writ Petition No. 239 (MS) of 2004 the petitioner stated as follows:-

(2.) This Court on 27.1.2004 again disposed of the writ petition with a direction to deposit the entire amount due against the petitioner in instalments. Since this order also appears to have not been complied with, therefore, the sale proclamation was issued which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. Now the prayer is for quashing of the impugned sale proclamation/auction notice dated 21.1.2004 (Annexure No. 1) and also for a direction to the opposite parties not to initiate any recovery proceedings. Again in para No. 1 of this petition it has been stated as follows:-

(3.) As would appear the petitioner approached this Court in successive writ petitions against the same auction notice/citation and after having obtained the order did not deposit the amount as indicated by this Court and when the authorities initiated coercive steps he again approached this Court by way of filing another writ petition. It would also be apparent that in both the writ petitions i.e. W.P. No. 239 (MS) of 2004 and in the present writ petition the averment by the petitioner is that the same are first writ petitions and he had not filed a writ petition earlier. In this manner he continued to obtain orders from this Court by deliberate concealment of fact and swearing wrong affidavits.