R.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Bhatia. Advocate, who has appeared for respondent No. 4 and also perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamuscommanding the respondents to get the claim of the bank satisfied first by sale of properties, which have been mortgaged, the details of which, are stated to have been given in the recovery certificate, contained in Annexure -3, not to use any other coercive measure, more particularly, the arrest of the petitioners till the claim of the respondent bank is not satisfied by sale of the properties. Further, to command the respondents not to initiate any recovery proceedings in pursuance of the recovery certificate, contained in Annexure -2 to the writ petition. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that on an application made by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4, the Bank of India, Branch Sulemsarai, Allahabad, a loan of Rs. 13.50 lacs was sanctioned for establishing of a dairy farm, in the name of Gokul Dairy Farm. The amount of loan was disbursed and paid to the petitioners after performing the formalities of execution of agreement of loan etc. There is nothing on the record to show that dairy business was at all started by the petitioners but according to them the said business failed and diary was closed. The petitioners failed to repay the amount of loan. Consequently, a recovery certificate for an amount of Rs. 17,65,773.00 was issued by the Bank to the Collector, Allahabad in accordance with the Credit provisions of U.P. Agriculture Act to recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue. On 24 -8 -2001, the order of attachment was passed in the recovery proceedings and the petitioners were directed not to transfer the property in dispute in favour of other persons. Thereafter, a citation and sale proclamation are stated to have been issued by the authorities. The petitioners, challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, firstly filed Writ Petition No. 23269 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by this Court by the judgment and order dated 28 -5 -1999. This Court permitted the petitioners to make a representation to the Respondent No. 3 (in the said petition) and directed the said respondent to decide the same within the time specified (two weeks). The recovery proceedings were directed to remain stayed during the said period subject to the condition petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs by 1st July, 1999, Rs. 5 lacs by 1st August, 1999, Rs. 5 lacs by 1st September, 1999 and the balance by 1st October, 1999. The petitioners were also directed not to alienate the property movable or immovable till the entire amount is paid and that in case of default the entire amount could be realized as arrears of land revenue. Apparently, the order passed by this Court was in favour of the petitioners but petitioners instead of obeying it, filed Special Appeal No. 504 of 1999 against the said decision. The special appeal was disposed of by this Court on 28 -6 -1999 with the direction that in case the appellants file any objection before the recovery officer the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by means of the reasoned order within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. In other respect the judgment under challenge was maintained by the Division Bench. The petitioners even then did not obey the orders passed by the Division Bench and filed another Writ Petition No. 27565 of 2000 in violation of the provisions of Rule 7 Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court. Legally, the said writ petition was not maintainable but this Court taking very lenient view in the matter, permitted the petitioners to deposit Rs. 5 lacs in cash or by bank draft on or before 20th May, 2001. It was further observed that if the said deposit was not made, the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the said order shall come to an end. It was also observed that if the said amount is paid, the petitioners shall be at liberty to make a representation to the Manager of the Bank alongwith the proof of deposit of money which shall be decided by the Manager and if any amount was found outstanding against the petitioners, same shall be paid by 15th September, 2001 in three monthly instalments. On payment of whole amount the recovery certificate was directed to be recalled. It was also observed that in case of default on the part of the petitioners the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The order was directed to stand automatically vacated and recovery proceedings to stand renewed as on date. The petitioners instead of complying with the aforesaid order filed a Civil Misc. Application in Writ Petition No. 27565 of 2000 for extension of time to deposit the amount in question. This Court again taking a lenient view in the matter extended the time to deposit the amount in question by one month. The time schedule given in the earlier order was accordingly modified by order dated 15 -5 -2001. The aforesaid orders are contained in Annexures 7,8,9 and 10 to the writ petition. It may also be pointed out that inspite of the aforesaid orders the petitioners did not deposit the amount in question or part thereof, on the other hand, they have also stated to have filed Original Suit No. 26 of 2000 for permanent injunction against the Bank. The fact of filing of suit has deliberately been concealed in the writ petition. However, this has been disclosed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in the contempt proceeding initiated against Petitioners No. 2 to 4, but it is not know whether the suit was still pending or not.
(3.) THE present petition has again been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the above mentioned reliefs.;