- (1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for re spondents Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. N. C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for respondents Nos. 3 & 4. They are heard.
(2.) THE Petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: "i. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand letter dated 24-10- 2002 contained annexure no. 5 and citation dated 22-11-2002 contained annexure no. 7 to this Writ Petition. ii. Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus com manding the Respondent no. 1 & 2 to refer the dispute to the Tribunal constituted by the Cen tral Govt. to redressed the dis pute between the Petitioner and the Respondent no. 1 & 2. iii. Cost of the Writ Petition be award in favour of Petitioner against the Respondent no. 1 & 2. iv. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case may be passed in favour of Petitioner. " The petitioner is challenging the recovery proceedings initiated against him vide Annexure 7. The petitioner was sanctioned loan of Rs. 2, 50, 000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) in the year 1993. The default by the petitioner in making payment of the instalments resulted in recovery proceedings vide Annexure 7.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the pe titioner submitted that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have erred in initiating recov ery proceedings without having re course to the provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 19-B of the Khadi and Village Industries Commis sion Act, 1956. The learned counsel for re spondents Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that Sub-Section (2) of Section 19-B of the Act has no appli cation to the facts of the case.;