- (1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Padia, holding brief of Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, and Sri Sandeep Mookherji, learned Standing Counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Despite due notice, the respondent No. 6 has not responded.
(2.) NO counter -affidavit has been filed. Thus, the averments made in the petition are unrebutted, and taken to be correct. By means of a notice dated 14th May, 1988, a copy whereof is Annexure -1 to the petition, issued at the behest of Kabirganj Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Kabirganj, Pilibhit, the respondent No. 6, the petitioner is called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 11, 958 due on account of loan alleged to have been taken by him from the respondent No. 6.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the recovery in pursuance of the impugned notice is bad inasmuch as the petitioner was given any opportunity before issuance of recovery certificate which is mandatory in view of Section 95 -A of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965. To buttress his contention, the learned Counsel places reliance on the two Division Bench decisions rendered in M/s Ram Narain Himmat Ram and another v. Jalaun Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jalaun and others and Kashi Prasad Singh v. Collector and District Magistrate, Varanasi and others, reported in 1986 Allahabad Weekly Cases at page 273 and 1991 Allahabad Law Journal at page 1078, respectively.;