Dismissed

Suresh Chand Dixit v. State of U P and 7 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2018WRIC/22969/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking mandamus to grant benefits under the State Government's 2016-17 Debt Waiver Scheme was dismissed. The Court rejected the petitioner's claims regarding unauthorized transfers and forged entries, noting that such transactions had not been disputed earlier and the scheme was not operational at the time those entries were made.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition for mandamus was dismissed.

Suresh Chand Dixit Vs State of U P and 7 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22969 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Chand Dixit Respondent :- State Of U P And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A0646,Amrish Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present petition has been filed with the prayer for mandamus commanding the respondents to accord the benefits of Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme sponsored by the State Government for the year 2016-17. The undisputed fact is that the said Scheme has been promulgated in the month of April 2017 wherein relief has been granted to those farmers whose credits (between 31.3.2016 to 31.3.2017 i.e. for the financial year 2016-17) were less than the outstanding amount for the said period.

¶7

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank, a specific stand has been taken that the outstanding in the KCC Loan Account of the petitioner as on 31.3.2016 was Rs.4,52,602/whereas the credits for the said account in the financial year 201617 was Rs.5,16,000/-.

¶8

For the fact that the credit exceeded outstanding in the said financial year, the petitioner was found ineligible for getting loan redemption under the aforesaid Scheme floated by the State Government. The summary of statement of the accounts of the KCC Account of the petitioner is given at Page-'48' of the counter affidavit. The credits between 2.4.2016 till 10.11.2016 as shown in the petitioner's KCC Account are being challenged in the rejoinder affidavit with the assertion that the bank had credited an amount of Rs.1,27,000/- on 2.4.2016 in the KCC Account by making transfers from the saving account of the petitioner lying in the same branch without his permission. With regard to the entries dated 22.4.2016 in the KCC Account passbook of the petitioner, it is contended that out of three entries of cash transactions made on 22.4.2016, two entries for an amount of Rs.10,000/- each are forged.

¶9

It is further submitted that the passbook of KCC Account of the petitioner was not handed over to him despite repeated request and, as such, the petitioner was not aware of the entries of credits in his Account.

¶10

Testing these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it would be relevant to note that the transactions for an amount of Rs.1,27,000/- was made in the KCC Account of the petitioner on 2.4.2016; as per own case of the petitioner, the said money was transferred from his saving account lying in the bank. The petitioner does not say that he was not aware of the said transaction rather it is contended that the said transaction was made by the bank officials without his consent. This objection has been taken in the

¶11

rejoinder affidavit filed in the month of August, 2018 which cannot be accepted in view of the fact of withdrawal of the said amount from the saving accounts of the petitioner in the year 2016 was not disputed by him before the bank authorities at the relevant point of time.

¶12

It cannot stand to reason that the petitioner was not aware of such huge amount being transferred from his Saving Bank Account to KCC Account.

¶13

Apart from this, two cash transactions dated 22.4.2014 cannot be allowed to be assailed after two years in this writ petiton.

¶14

Moreso, at that point of time, the scheme in question was not in vogue. It was promulgated in the month of April 2017. Under the said scheme, the deposits made during the financial year 2016-17 were required to be examined by the bank authorities for making recommendation to the State Government for grant of benefits i.e. for loan redemption of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶15

In the event the scheme was not in operation, there was no occasion for the bank authorities to manipulate KCC Account of the petitioner so as to make deposits in cash.

¶16

All the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner to assail the decision taken by the bank authorities for denying benefit of the loan redemption scheme noted above are found misconceived.

¶17

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Jyotsana

Suresh Chand Dixit v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chand Dixit v. State of U P and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Rana Vs Permanent Lok Adalat and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Gupta Vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Durgesh Kumar Vs State of U P and Another

Iqbal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Makkhan Lal Gupta Vs Commissioner Allahabad Division and 3 Others