Disposed

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2021WRIC/8606/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

petitioner approached High Court claiming non-payment of subsidized bank interest under a government agreement and threatened recovery. Court directed respondent to consider application within two months and prohibited coercive action for three months.

What did the court decide?

Directorate of Vinayak and Dairy Development directed to pass orders on application within two months; coercive action stayed for three months.

Yogendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8606 of 2020 Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vaibhav Tripathi

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Arvind Prabodh Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶4

The petitioner claims that in terms of Government order dated 17.08.2015 a loan was applied by him for running of Mini Kamdhenu Dairy for which an agreement was executed between the petitioner and Chief Veterinary Officer, Mathura, respondent no.3. It is claimed that in pursuance of the said agreement the respondents are bound to pay the interest directly to the bank, which is in the nature of subsidy. The petitioner further alleged that the bank manager of the Syndicate Bank has also written a letter dated 21.08.2019 to the respondent no.3 quantifying the amount of interest payable to the petitioner to the extent of Rs.2,91,964/-, however, the respondent no.3 has not taken any decision thereupon and has not released the interest of loan amount.

¶5

It is further stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on account of failure of respondent no.3 to pay the interest in terms of agreement, the respondent-bank is threatening to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner by way of communication dated 30.01.2020. Thus, the petitioner preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶6

"I. issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to pay the interest amount to the respondent no.4 within stipulated period or within reasonable time."

¶7

Considering the grievances raised by the petitioner this Court permits the petitioner to move an application before the respondent no.3 annexing all the documents along with a computerized copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today and in the even such an application is made, the respondent no.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of moving of the application along with a computerized copy of this order.

¶8

For a period of three months from today or till decision is taken by the respondent no.3 on the application of the petitioner, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶9

The Writ Petition is, accordingly disposed of.

¶10

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

¶11

Order Date :- 18.1.2021 S.P.

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Rukhsar Shaikh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Subhash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samseer Vs Usman and 2 Others

Ramsan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others

Nageena Begum Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yadvendra Mani Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others