# Jai Bahadur Singh v. Union Bank of India - **Citation:** (2011) 2 ILRA 587 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-06 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2011 - **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-bahadur-singh-v-union-bank-of-india-41929 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India Article 226-Natural Justice-cancellation of candidature for selection of distributionship of L.P.G. Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitarak Schemepetitioner submitted her deed of title with joint affidavit of other co-sharer including her husband-if dealership granted having no objection-petitioner awarded 81% marks before participation of draw of lots- candidature canceled as the title deed on verification not found exclusive with name of her husbandwithout affording opportunity to the petitioner-held not proper if within days explanation filed the authorities to take appropriate decision in mean time no letters of appointment be issued Held: Para 10 Against this background, factually when we find that the cancellation order was passed on 10th March, 2011 and the same was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 15th March, 2011, and in between these two dates news item was published on 11th March, 2011 and subsequent selection was held on 14th March, 2011 by selecting the respondent no. 3 herein, such exercise appears to be contrary to the interest of a selected candidate. No specified time has been given to the petitioner to explain the position as mentioned in the order of cancellation dated 10th March, 2011 pursuant to such Paragraph 12.10, the petitioner is entitled to file her grievance before the concerned redressal system within seven days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order to get an opportunity of hearing and if she does so, the authority concerned will consider the cause and finalise the issue within a period of seven days thereafter. Only after consideration of the grievance of the petitioner, the authority concerned will be entitled to call upon the respondent no. 3 to verify her record too to evaluate her right over the land. However, no letter of intent will be issued, if not already issued, to any candidate. In case letter of ## Text 2 All] Jai Bahadur Singh V. Union Bank of India 587 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,J. THE HON'BLE RAJESH CHANDRA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2011 Jai Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union Bank of India ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Avinash Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : A.T. Kulshrestha U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972-Recover Certificate-Loan advanced for purchase of Mahindra Bolero-default in payment of installments-can not be recovered as arrears of land revenueRecovery Certificate quashed-with liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. Held: Para 7 In view of the statement made by Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India, it is evident that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuance of Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 for making recovery as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 are without jurisdiction. (Delivered by Hon'ble S. P. Mehrotra,J. ) 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972. 2. In paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has, inter-alia, stated that the loan was taken "in the scheme of P.M.R.Y to instal Motor Vehicle". 3. As the purpose for grant of loan and also the scheme, if any, under which the same was granted, was not clear from the averments made in the Writ Petition, we granted time to Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India to obtain instructions in the matter. 4. Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India has obtained instructions in the matter, and on the basis of the said instructions, he states that the loan was given to the petitioner for purchasing Motor Vehicle, namely, Mahindra Bolero. 5. Shri A.T. Kulshrestha further states that such loan cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and the Recovery Certificate has been sent by the respondentUnion Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh under misconception. 6. We have heard Shri Avinash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India. 7. In view of the statement made by Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the respondent-Union Bank of India, it is evident that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuance of Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 for making recovery as arrears of land revenue 588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 are without jurisdiction. 8. In view of the above, the Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is liable to be quashed. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is quashed. 10. This order will, however, not come in the way of the respondent-Union Bank of India to proceed against the petitioner to make recovery in respect of the loan in question in accordance with law. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA,J. THE HON'BLE ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21194 of 2011 Smt. Sunita Singh ...Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others ... Respondents Counsel For the Petitioner: Mr. Wasim Alam Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari. Counsel For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Budhwar. Constitution of India Article 226-Natural Justice-cancellation of candidature for selection of distributionship of L.P.G. Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vitarak Schemepetitioner submitted her deed of title with joint affidavit of other co-sharer including her husband-if dealership granted having no objection-petitioner awarded 81% marks before participation of draw of lots- candidature canceled as the title deed on verification not found exclusive with name of her husbandwithout affording opportunity to the petitioner-held not proper if within days explanation filed the authorities to take appropriate decision in mean time no letters of appointment be issued Held: Para 10 Against this background, factually when we find that the cancellation order was passed on 10th March, 2011 and the same was sent to the petitioner through registered post on 15th March, 2011, and in between these two dates news item was published on 11th March, 2011 and subsequent selection was held on 14th March, 2011 by selecting the respondent no. 3 herein, such exercise appears to be contrary to the interest of a selected candidate. No specified time has been given to the petitioner to explain the position as mentioned in the order of cancellation dated 10th March, 2011 pursuant to such Paragraph 12.10, the petitioner is entitled to file her grievance before the concerned redressal system within seven days from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order to get an opportunity of hearing and if she does so, the authority concerned will consider the cause and finalise the issue within a period of seven days thereafter. Only after consideration of the grievance of the petitioner, the authority concerned will be entitled to call upon the respondent no. 3 to verify her record too to evaluate her right over the land. However, no letter of intent will be issued, if not already issued, to any candidate. In case letter of intent has already been issued, no letter of appointment will be issued for such period.