# (2011) 1 ILRA 484

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71837 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Shyam Shankar Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2011-1-ilra-484-41893
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965Section
34
readwith
Section
95-ARecovery
certificate-loan
advance
to
purchase of Tempo-default in payment of
instalments-petitioner
possesses
less
than 3.125 acre land in view of G.O.
Dated 27.09.07 such plots can not be
auctioned-other mode of recovery by
issuing recovery certificate-provision of
Section
95-A
of
the
Act
are
fully
attracted by virtue of section 34 of the
Act-held-recovery
certificate-justifiedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para 11

Under Section 34, the State Government
has
a
right
to
nominate
on
the
Committee
of
Management
of
such
society not more than two persons in
cases as mentioned in the said section. It
is not denied that the State Government
gives loan and makes advances to
respondent no. 1 and the U.P. Sahakari
Gramin Vikas Bank is run on the financial
aid and grants provided by the State as
has been submitted by learned counsel
for the respondents. The respondent no.
1 thus, is clearly covered within the
meaning of section 34 and with regard to
recovery of dues of such society section
95-A is fully attracted. As mentioned
above, the respondent no. 1 is registered
cooperative society within the meaning
of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965
by virtue of section 131 of 1965 Act.
Hence, Section 95-A is fully attracted in
the facts of the present case. As
submitted by learned counsel for the
respondents, the agricultural land of less
than 3.125 acres cannot be sold hence,
the respondent no. 1 can adopt the other
process of recovery as provided. Thus,
the respondents are free to adopt other
process of recovery except for auction of
the land result of which may render the
agriculturist having less than land 3.125
acres.
Case law discussed:
1965 R.D. 327; 1968 R.D. 187; 1968 R.D. 57;
1969 R.D. 79; 2001 Allahabad Civil Journal
1167;1984 AIR (S.C.) 718

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
by Naushad Alam in Writ Petition
no.61552 of 2008.

34. Since the orders dated 18th
August, 2008 and 31st August, 2008 are
quashed, writ petition no.66596 of 2008
must have to fail. It is accordingly
dismissed.

35. There shall be no order as to
costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.
THE HON'BLE SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 71837 of 2010

Harish Chandra

 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.,
Sri K.M.Misra
Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965Section
34
readwith
Section
95-ARecovery
certificate-loan
advance
to
purchase of Tempo-default in payment of
instalments-petitioner
possesses
less
than 3.125 acre land in view of G.O.
Dated 27.09.07 such plots can not be
auctioned-other mode of recovery by
issuing recovery certificate-provision of
Section
95-A
of
the
Act
are
fully
attracted by virtue of section 34 of the
Act-held-recovery
certificate-justifiedpetition dismissed.

Held: Para 11

Under Section 34, the State Government
has
a
right
to
nominate
on
the
Committee
of
Management
of
such
society not more than two persons in
cases as mentioned in the said section. It
is not denied that the State Government
gives loan and makes advances to
respondent no. 1 and the U.P. Sahakari
Gramin Vikas Bank is run on the financial
aid and grants provided by the State as
has been submitted by learned counsel
for the respondents. The respondent no.
1 thus, is clearly covered within the
meaning of section 34 and with regard to
recovery of dues of such society section
95-A is fully attracted. As mentioned
above, the respondent no. 1 is registered
cooperative society within the meaning
of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965
by virtue of section 131 of 1965 Act.
Hence, Section 95-A is fully attracted in
the facts of the present case. As
submitted by learned counsel for the
respondents, the agricultural land of less
than 3.125 acres cannot be sold hence,
the respondent no. 1 can adopt the other
process of recovery as provided. Thus,
the respondents are free to adopt other
process of recovery except for auction of
the land result of which may render the
agriculturist having less than land 3.125
acres.
Case law discussed:
1965 R.D. 327; 1968 R.D. 187; 1968 R.D. 57;
1969 R.D. 79; 2001 Allahabad Civil Journal
1167;1984 AIR (S.C.) 718

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. By this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing the
citation dated 8.11.2010 for recovery of
amount of Rs. 1,31,875/- as well as
recovery certificate dated 15.10.2007 in
so far as it relates to the petitioner
(Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Short
counter
affidavit
and
short
supplementary counter affidavit have
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and others
485
been filed by the respondent no. 1 to
which rejoinder affidavit has also been
filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts, which emerged from
pleadings of the parties are; the petitioner
was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 73,000/- on
20.1.2001 by respondent no. 1 for
purchase
of
tempo. The
petitioner
deposited an amount of Rs. 11,925/- on
29.10.2001 and Rs. 6,166/- on 7.6.2002
towards repayment of loan. No further
amount was paid by the petitioner hence,
the respondent no. 1 made application to
the
District
Assistant
Registrar,
Cooperative Societies, Allahabad for
issuance of certificate under section 95-A
(1) of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965 for recovery of an amount of Rs.
1,31,875/- from the petitioner. District
Assistant
Registrar
issued
recovery
certificate
dated
15.10.2007,
which
certificate contained the name of the
petitioner also. On the basis of the
recovery certificate issued by the District
Assistant Registrar, a citation dated
8.11.2010 has been issued by the
Tahsildar for recovery of amount of Rs.
1,31,875/-. The petitioner by this writ
petition has challenged the aforesaid
recovery certificate and citation.

3. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner in support of the writ petition,
raised following submissions.

i. Sections 15 and 16 of the U.P.
Sahakari Gramin Vikas Bank Act, 1964
and Rule 45 of U.P. Sahakari Gramin
Vikas Bank Rules, 1971 provides a
procedure for recovery of loan, which
procedure having not been followed for
recovery, the action of the respondents in
issuing recovery certificate under section
95-A is illegal. When procedure has been
prescribed under the Act and Rules, any
other mode or manner of recovery is
prohibited. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner in support of his above
submission,
placed
reliance
on
judgments of this Court reported in 1965
R.D. 327, Wakf Alu-Allah Kayam
Karida- Ahmad Ullah Khan Sahab,
Waqf Baratu through Riaz Uddin
Tailar Vs. Balak Singh, 1968 R.D. 187,
Brij Bahadur Lal Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation, U.P. & others, 1968
R.D. 57, Abdul Wahid Khan and
others
Vs.
Dy.
Director
of
Consolidation, Jaunpur, and others,
1969 R.D. 79 Durga Prasad Vs. Board
of Revenue U.P. and others, Full Bench
judgment of this Court in Smt. Sharda
Devi Vs. State of U.P., 2001 Allahabad
Civil Journal 1167. The judgment of the
apex Court reported in 1984 AIR (S.C.)
718
A.R.
Antulay
Vs.
Ramdas
Sriniwas Nayak.

ii. Section 95-A of the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is not
applicable with regard to loan sanctioned
by U.P. Sahakari Gramin Vikas Bank
since the bank is neither an agricultural
credit society nor a society referred to in
section 34 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965.

4. Sri K.N. Misra, learned counsel
for
the
respondents
refuting
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that recovery by
issuance of certificate under section 95-A
of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965 is fully permissible for respondent
no. 1. He submits that the said issue has
already been decided by Division Bench
of this Court in writ petition No. 66154
of 2010 Sukh Lal Vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 5.1.2011, where
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
similar arguments have been repelled. He
further submits that the respondent no. 1
is a society which is governed by section
34 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965
and
recovery
by
issuing
a
certificate under section 95-A is fully
permissible. He submits that execution of
certificate
under
section
92
is
permissible for which limitation is 12
years. He submits that petitioner has not
made any repayment of loan after
payment of two amounts of Rs. 11,925
and 6,166/- in the year 2001 and 2002.
He further submits that the land of the
petitioner being less than 3.125 acre, it
cannot be sold due to the Government
Order dated 27.9.2007 which prohibits
auction of land of less than 3.125 acre.
He submits that the land of the petitioner
cannot be sold hence, the Bank has no
option except to proceed under section
95-A the 1965 Act.

5.

We
have
considered the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and hae perused the record.

6. The principal submission which
has been pressed by Sri Awadhesh Pratap
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
is that 1964 Act and the Rules framed
thereunder provides a specific procedure
for recovery hence, the recovery by
issuance of certificate under section 95-A
of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965, is not permissible. He submits that
when a statute provides a manner of
doing a particular thing, the said thing
can be done in the above manner only
and doing of thing by another manner is
prohibited. 1964 Act provides procedure
for realization of its loan. In the present
case, stand taken by the respondents is
that recovery had been initiated in
accordance with Section 95-A of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,1965
which procedure is permissible, as the
respondent
no.
1
is
a
registered
cooperative society within the meaning
of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
The above issue which has been raised in
the writ petition, was considered by a
Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Sukh Lal (supra). It is relevant to
extract relevant discussions in this
regard. The Division Bench in Sukh
Lal's case repelled the above submission
after considering the provisions of 1964
Act and U.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1965. Following was laid down by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid case:

"The U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas
Banks Act, 1964 has been enacted to
facilitate the working of Sahkari Gram
Vikas Banks in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. Section 2(j) provides that Uttar
Pradeshs Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank
means a cooperative society registered
under the Cooperative Societies Act.
Section 2(j) is quoted below:-

"2(j). Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram
Vikas Banks means a cooperative society
registered
under
the
Co-operative
Societies Act for the time being in force
in Uttar Pradesh with its area of
operation covering the whole of Uttar
Pradesh and carrying on the business as
a Gram Vikas Bank and facilitating the
operation of its members;"

7. From the materials brought on
the record including the mortgage deed
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it is
clear that the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari
Gram Vikas Bank Limited is a registered
society under the Cooperative Societies
Act, 1912. According to Section 131 of
the 1965 Act any cooperative society
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and others
487
existing on the date of coming into force
of the 1965 Act and registered under the
Cooperative Societies Act, 1912 shall be
deemed to be registered under the 1965
Act. Thus the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas
Bank is a registered cooperative society
within the meaning of the 1965 Act.
Section 15 of the 1964 Act provides
procedure for distraint and sale by the
Gram Vikas Bank. Sections 15(1) and
16(1) of the 1964 Act, which are relevant
for the purpose, are quoted below:-

"15(1). Distraint when to be made.-
(1) If any instalment payable under a
mortgage executed in favour of a Gram
Vikas Bank or any part of such
instalment remains unpaid for more than
one month from the date on which it falls
due, the managing committee may, in
addition to any other remedy available to
the said bank, apply to the Registrar for
the recovery of such instalment or part
thereof by distraint and sale of the
produce of the mortgaged land including
the standing crops thereon."

(2) ............

(3) ............

16. Power of sale when to be
exercised -(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, where a power of sale without
the intervention of court is expressly
conferred on a Gram Vikas Bank by a
declaration of charge made or mortgage
deed executed before or after the
commencement of this Act, the managing
committee of such bank or any person
authorised by such committee in this
behalf shall, in case of default in
payment of the money due under the
mortgage or charged or any part thereof,
have power, in addition to any other
remedy available to the said bank, to
bring the property subject to any
mortgage or charge to sale without the
intervention of the court.

(2) ...........

(3) ...........

(4) ...........

(5) ..........."

The aforesaid of Sections 15 and 16
of the 1964 Act clearly indicate that the
power given in the aforesaid sub-sections
are in addition to any other remedy
available to the said Bank. Thus the
procedure laid down in the 1964 Act
does not prohibit adopting of any other
process which is available to the Gram
Vikas Bank under any law. As noticed
above, the Gram Vikas Bank being a
registered cooperative society within the
meaning of the 1965 Act, the provisions
of Section 95-A of the 1965 Act are fully
applicable.

Rule 45 of the 1971 Rules on which
much reliance has been placed by
counsel for the petitioners, provides as
under:-

"45. Recovery of arrears of loans
secured on furnishing sureties - (1) The
Registrar may on an application made in
this behalf for the recovery of arrears of
any loan or any instalment thereof on
furnishing a statement a accounts in
respect of such loans and after making
such enquiries, if any, as he thinks fit,
issue a certificate for recovery of the
amount due.
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

(2) A certificate issued by the
Registrar under sub-rule (1) shall be
final and conclusive proof of the dues
which shall be recoverable as arrear of
land revenue from the sureties and the
borrower jointly and severally."

Rule 45 of the 1971 Rules has been
subsequently added in the 1964 Act. By
notification dated 22nd January, 1990
Chapter 5-A was added in the 1965 Act.
Rule 45 is akin to Section 95-A of the
1965 Act. Section 95-A of the 1965 Act is
quoted below:-

"95-A.
Special
provision
for
recovery of certain dues of agricultural
society. (1) The Registrar may, on an
application made by society referred to
in Section 34 or an agricultural credit
society for the recovery of arrears of any
loan advanced by it or any instalment
thereof to any member and on its
furnishing a statement of accounts in
respect of such loan and after making
such inquiries, if any, as he thinks fit,
issue a certificate for recovery of the
amounts due.

(2) A certificate issued by the
Registrar under sub-section (1) shall be
final and conclusive proof of the dues
which shall be executable under Section
92."

Rule 45 of the 1971 Rules provides
that Registrar on an application made
for recovery of arrears of any loan may
issue a certificate for recovery of the
amount. The word "Registrar" is defined
in Section 2(h) of the 1964 Act, which is
to the following effect:-

"2(h). "Registrar" means the person
appointed by the State Government to be
Registrar of Cooperative Societies for
the State of Uttar Pradesh under the
provisions of the Cooperative Societies
Act for the time being in force in Uttar
Pradesh;"

Section 95-A of the 1965 Act also
refers to "Registrar" and for "Registrar",
the definition given in Section 2(r) of the
1965 Act is to be referred, which is to the
following effect:-

"2(r). "Registrar" means the person
for the time being appointed as Registrar
of Cooperative Societies under subsection (1) of Section 3 and includes any
person appointed under sub-section (2)
of that section when exercising all or any
of the powers of the Registrar;"

From the above provisions, it is
clear that the procedure for issuing
certificate under Rule 45 of the 1971
Rules and the authority to issue the said
certificate are the same as provided
under Section 95-A of the 1965 Act. Thus
the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that recovery, which is under
challenge, is against the 1964 Act and
the 1971 rules cannot be accepted.

The respondent-Bank has come up
with the specific plea that recovery has
been initiated on the basis of certificate
issued under Section 95-A of the 1965
Act and the said certificate has been filed
as Annexure CA-2 to the counter
affidavit filed by respondent No.4.
Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit
specifically refers to Section 95-A of the
1965 Act and the certificate has been
issued by the District Assistant Registrar,
Cooperative
Societies,
U.P.
The
respondent No.4 has brought on the
record
the
notification
dated
15th
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and others
489
November, 1979 issued by the State
Government in exercise of power of U.P.
General Clauses Act, 1904 read with
power of the State Government as
referred to under Section 3(2) of the
1965 Act by which the District Assistant
Registrar has been authorised to exercise
the power under Section 95-A of the
1965 Act with regard to such branches of
the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Bhumi Vikas
Bank Limited which are within its
jurisdiction. Section 3 of the 1965 Act is
quoted below:-

"3.
Registrar.
-(1)
The
State
Government may appoint a person to be
the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
for the State.

(2) The State Government may, for
the purpose of this Act, also appoint
other persons to assist the Registrar and
by general or special order confer on
any such person all or any of the powers
of the Registrar.

(3) Where any order has been made
under sub-section (2) conferring on any
person all or any of the powers of the
Registrar under any provision of this
Act, such order shall be deemed to
confer on him all the powers under that
provision as may be amended from time
to time."

Thus the District Assistant Registrar
is fully empowered to exercise the power
of Registrar under Section 95-A of the
1965 Act and the recovery certificate
dated 5th October, 2007 issued by the
District Assistant Registrar is fully in
consonance with the provisions of
Section 95-A of the 1965 Act and the
District Assistant Registrar for the
purpose of Section 95-A of the 1965 Act
is empowered to act as Registrar. Thus
the submission of the petitioners' counsel
that
recovery
proceedings
initiated
against the petitioners are in breach of
the 1964 Act and the 1971 Rules is
misconceived."

8. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner in support of his submission
that when a thing is required to be done
in a statute in a particular maner, the
same has to be done in the said manner,
has placed reliance on large number of
judgements as noted above. The Full
Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Abdul Wahid Khan (supra), while
considering the principle of statutory
interpretation, held that the words used
by Legislature to be construed in their
natural meaning when text is explicit.
There cannot be any dispute to the
principles of interpretation as laid down
by the apex Court in the said judgment.
The
same
principle
of
statutory
interpretation were reiterated by this
Court in the case of Durga Prasad
(supra). In A.R. Antulay's case (supra),
following was laid down in paragraph
22:

"Once the contention on behalf of
the appellant that investigation under
Sec. 5A is a condition precedent to the
initiation of proceedings before a special
Judge and therefore cognizance of an
offence cannot be taken except upon a
police report, does not commend to us
and has no foundation in law, it is
unnecessary to refer to the long line of
decisions commencing from Taylor v
Taylor, (1) Nazir Ahamad v. King
Emperor (2) and ending with Chettiam
Veettil Ahmad and Anr. v. Taluk Land
Board and Ors., (3) laying down hitherto
uncontroverted
legal
principle
that
490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
where a statute requires to do a certain
thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all Other
methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden."

9. There cannot be any dispute to
the proposition as laid down by the apex
Court in the above mentioned case,
following the earlier judgment of the
Privi Council and the judgments of the
apex Court as noticed therein. However,
in the present case, although procedure
for recovery has been laid down in 1964
Act and Rules 1971, but according to the
express provisions of Sections 15 and 16
other
modes
of recovery
are
not
prohibited. When Sections 15 and 16
itself contemplated that remedy as
provided under sections 15 and 16 are
"....in addition to any other remedy
available to the said Bank..." Thus,
according to Sections 15 and 16 any
other remedy available to the Bank is
also contemplated by statutory provision.
Thus, the provisions of Sections 15 and
16 itself contemplated that recovery can
also be effected by any other manner
available to the Bank and any other mode
of recovery available to the Bank is not
prohibited
rather
is
permitted
by
statutory provision. As noticed above,
the respondent no. 1 being a registered
cooperative society within the meaning
of Section 131 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965, the mode of
recovery under section 95A was clearly
available to the respondent no. 1. Thus,
the principles laid down by the apex
Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) is
not attracted and the recovery by mode
as prescribed under section 95-A, is not
prohibited
rather
is
permitted
by
provisions of 1964 Act.

10. The second submission which
has been pressed by learned counsel for
the petitioner is that Section 95-A is not
attracted to the respondent no. 1 since it
is neither an agricultural credit society
nor a society referred to under section 34
of 1965 Act. It is true that the respondent
No. 1 is not an agricultural credit society
thus, it has to be looked into as to
whether the respondent no. 1 is covered
by society as contemplated under section
34. Section 34 of the U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 is as follows:

" Section 34 - Nominee of the
Government
on
the
committee
of
management.-(1)
Where
the
State
Government has-

(a) subscribed directly to the share
capital of a co-operative society under
Chapter VI: or

(b)
assisted
indirectly
in
the
formation or augmentation of the share
capital of a co-operative society as
provided in Chapter VI; or

(c) given loans or made advances to
a co-operative society or guaranteed the
repayment of principal and payment of
interest on debentures issued by a cooperative society or guaranteed the
repayment of principal and payment of
interest on loans or advances to a cooperative society.

the State Government shall have the
right to nominate on the Committee of
Management of such society not more
than two persons one of whom shall be a
Government servant, so, however, that
the Government servant shall not vote at
an election of an office-bearer of the
society.
1 All Harish Chandra V. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. and others
491

Provided that where the society is
engaged in production of sugar and--

(i) the share capital subscribed to
by the State Government is not less than
one crore rupees, or

(ii)
the
share
of
the
State
Government in the share capital of the
society exceed fifty per cent of the total
share capital of the society, or

(iii) the State Government has given
loans or made advances to the society, or
guaranteed the repayment of principal or
payment of interest on debenture, issued
by the society or guaranteed the
repayment of principal and interest on
loans and advances to the society and the
amount exceeds fifty per cent in the
aggregate of the total amount so
borrowed by the society.

the State Government shall also
have the right to nominate the Chairman
of the Committee of Management, who
shall be a Government servant, of such
societies and their apex society, namely,
the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Sugar
Factories Federation Ltd.

(2) A person nominated under subsection (1) shall hold office during the
pleasure of the State Government.

(3) The right of nomination vested
in the 11[Joint Registrar-in-charge or
Deputy Registrar-in-charge] under this
section may be delegated by it to any
authority specified by it in that behalf.

Explanation.--For the purpose of
this section any guarantee given by the
Central
Government
on
the
recommendation of the State Government
shall be deemed to be a guarantee given
by the State Government."

11. Under Section 34, the State
Government has a right to nominate on
the Committee of Management of such
society not more than two persons in
cases as mentioned in the said section. It
is not denied that the State Government
gives loan and makes advances to
respondent no. 1 and the U.P. Sahakari
Gramin Vikas Bank is run on the
financial aid and grants provided by the
State as has been submitted by learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.
The
respondent no. 1 thus, is clearly covered
within the meaning of section 34 and
with regard to recovery of dues of such
society section 95-A is fully attracted. As
mentioned above, the respondent no. 1 is
registered cooperative society within the
meaning of U.P. Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965 by virtue of section 131 of
1965 Act. Hence, Section 95-A is fully
attracted in the facts of the present case.
As submitted by learned counsel for the
respondents, the agricultural land of less
than 3.125 acres cannot be sold hence,
the respondent no. 1 can adopt the other
process of recovery as provided. Thus,
the respondents are free to adopt other
process of recovery except for auction of
the land result of which may render the
agriculturist having less than land 3.125
acres.

12. Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Smt. Sharda Devi (supra),
which has been relied by learned counsel
for the petitioner has laid down that
recovery of dues by banking company
under U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of
Dues) Act, 1972 can be taken only when
the loan of advance grant or credit has
been given by bank under a State
492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
sponsored scheme and not otherwise. In
the present case, the provisions of U.P.
Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act,
1972 has not been resorted to by
respondent no. 1 nor recovery has been
initiated under the 1972 Act hence, the
said Full Bench judgment has no
application in the facts of the present
case.

13. In the writ petition, it has also
been alleged that recovery is time barred
under the provisions of the Indian
Limitation Act. Under section 92 of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965,
the time for execution is provided as 12
years. No foundation has been laid down
in the writ petition as to how the issuance
of certificate under section 95-A of U.P.
Cooperative Societies Act is barred by
any law of limitation. Due to above
reason, the above submission has not
been pressed.

14. No ground has been made out
to quash the recovery certificate as well
as citation issued by the Tahsildar for
recovery. The petitioner is not entitled
for any relief. However, as contended by
learned counsel for the respondents,
recovery can be effected by any means
other than auction of the mortgaged land
of the petitioner, which is less than 3.125
acre.

15. Subject to above, the writ
petition is dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21663 of 2011

Vikas Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N.Singh
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi (C.S.C.)
Sri Ramanand Pandey (S.C.)
Sri Ravindra Kumar
Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226maintainability of writ petition-affidavit
filed by Parokar-and not by Petitioner
without
disclosing
identity
or
connection with Petitioners-when writ
of certionary or mandamus can not be
issued on affidavit of Power of Attorney
holder-writ
filed
by
Pairokar
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 2

Supporting affidavit of the pairokar
speaks that the averments of all the
paragraphs of the writ petition are true
to his personal knowledge. But in
paragraph-7 of the writ petition, where
the allegations are made against the
Chief Minister of the State and the
Chairman of the Noida authority, it
appears to be based on the informations
of
property
dealer/s
even
without
disclosing the identity of such person/s.
No such persons are even made party
respondents. Against this background,