Disposed

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024/1166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandate for considering a crop loan redemption claim and staying recovery proceedings. It granted liberty to submit a fresh representation for the bank to decide within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a fresh representation within two weeks; respondent bank to consider and decide the same by a reasoned order within ten days.

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52756

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1166 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajaram And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Balram Yadava

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Dinesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent no.1 and Shri Balram Yadav, who has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3-Bank.

¶7

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief:-

¶8

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite parties, to consider the claim of the petitioners under the scheme of Small and Marginal Farmer Crop Loan Redemption launches by the Govt. of U.P. dated 07.04.2017 by providing the benefit/subsidy to the farmers, as such the opposite parties did not consider the grievance of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

¶9

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite parties to take decision on pending representation dated 29.06.2017 for adjusting the amount of Rs.1,00,000/under the scheme of Small and Marginal Farmer Crop Loan Redemption launches by the Govt. of U.P. and provide the statement of the loan account and also not take any coercive action or make any recovery proceeding against the petitioners in pursuance of above mentioned agriculture loan, in the interest of justice."

¶10

It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 29.03.2010 for purchasing a tractor. It has been submitted that the petitioner had made certain repayments to the respondents Bank but due to natural calamity and for other important reasons, he could not repay the amount to the respondent-Bank and consequently,

¶11

the recovery proceedings have been initiated by the respondent no.3. It has been submitted that according to the petitioner, he has repaid the entire amount of loan but despite repayment of the entire amount of loan, the respondent Bank is still proceedings to recover money from the petitioners arbitrarily.

¶12

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners can be substantially redressed, in case, the respondent no.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation expeditiously.

¶13

Shri Balram Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3-Bank does not object to the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

In light of the above, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move a fresh representation to the respondent-Bank within two weeks from today. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no.3 shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously within ten days thereafter by a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioners.

¶15

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 KR

¶16

(Alok Mathur,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 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

Haribansh Chaubey and 6 Others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Provident Fund Office Lko. and Another

Ram Shabd Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate , Jaisinghpur , Sultanpur and Others

Abid Ali Vs Civil Judge (Jr.Div) Lalganj Pratapgarh and 3 Others

M/S Sardar Motors Civil Lines Faizabad Throu Its Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Anil Kumar Bajpai Vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Lko. and Others

Badarunnisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others