- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioners. (ii) Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) On 18th January, 2012, this Court while entertaining the present writ petition passed following orders: The District Magistrate, Basti must file his personal affidavit categorically stating as to how a sum of Rs. 70,000/- has been recovered towards collection charges when in fact the loan money has been deposited under the order of the High Court in installments and no recovery proceedings which could justify realization of such huge amount had been undertaken. The bank may also inform as to how it has debited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in the account of the petitioner. Put up as unlisted on 2.2.2012 with the name of Shri S.K. Kakkar as counsel for the Bank. On 17th February, 2012, this Court had passed an order as under: A sum of Rs. 70,000/- was realized towards recovery charges from the petitioner in respect of agricultural loan advanced in his favour. According to the petitioner the loan amount was repaid under the orders passed by the High Court and in fact no recovery proceedings had been taken. This Court required the District Magistrate to explain as to why such a huge sum of money has been realized as recovery charges from the poor farmer. The District Magistrate has filed an affidavit today stating therein that it was the Branch Manager who had written a letter disclosing that the Tehsildar had recovered the sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- from the farmer, therefore, collection charges to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- are being remitted to the Government amount. The affidavit filed by the District Magistrate does not disclose any proceedings having been taken under the provisions of the UPZA &LR Act or under the Land Revenue Act which could justify such huge amount of recovery charges. Counsel for the bank made an statement that since the money was recovered by the Tehsildar, 10% of the total money recovered has been transmitted as collection charges. The stand taken by the bank and the District Magistrate both prima facie disclose an attempt to harass the poor farmer. However, before any further orders are passed, the District Magistrate may appear before this Court with copies of all relevant records for disclosing as to what actual steps were taken by the district authorities including the Tehsildar on the basis whereof such huge sum of Rs. 70,000/- is stated to have been realized as collection charges.
(3.) In compliance to the order of this Court dated 17th February, 2012, today the District Magistrate, who is present in the Court today, has filed an affidavit.;