Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner took an agricultural loan in the year 2005 for a sum of Rs. 2,95,000/-. The petitioner did not clear his dues and, accordingly a recovery certificate dated 6.2.2007 was issued for the recovery of Rs. 3,60,306/- + interest and collection charges. The petitioner filed a writ petition for the quashing of the citation. The Court, by an order dated 25.7.2007 disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit the amount in various instalments and if the same was deposited, the recovery charges would be waived. The Court also directed the bank to supply a copy of the statement of accounts, if the petitioner applied. It transpires that the petitioner deposited 1/4th of the amount on 9.9.2007 and that there was a delay of about 4 days. It is alleged that the petitioner applied for a statement of account from the bank but the same was not supplied to the petitioner and, accordingly he did not deposit the remaining amount. It further transpires that the petitioner applied for the modification of the order of the Writ Court dated 25.7.2007 praying that the time for deposit of the instalment be extended. This application was rejected by an order of the Court dated 22.8.2008. The petitioner has now filed a fresh writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to decide his representation dated 7.9.2007 and permit the petitioner to deposit the balance amount in three monthly instalments. The petitioner has further prayed that penal and compound interest should not be charged and further the recovery/collection charges should also be waived in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Mirza Javed Murtaza v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another, AIR 1983 Alld. 234.
(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and Sri B.N. Singh, the learned Counsel appears for the respondent bank, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court. Once the petitioner files a writ petition and obtains an order for depositing the loan amount in various instalments, he was required to comply with those directions strictly, failing which, he would loose the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of the Court. If the instalments are not paid within the stipulated period, it is open to the respondent bank to recover the amount forthwith and no liberty is left to the petitioner to again pray for deposit of the amount in various instalments.
(3.) The petitioner in the present case has prayed that his representation should be decided by the respondent authorities. No discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner directing the respondent bank to decide the petitioner's representation in view of the fact that he had not complied with the earlier order of the Writ Court. Further, the question of waiver of the recovery charge was subject to the deposit of the entire amount as per the direction of the Writ Court. Since the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount, he was liable to pay the recovery charges as well and therefore, the decision cited by the petitioner is not applicable any longer. In so far as penal or compounding interest is concerned, this is a disputed question of fact which could not be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction and such question can only be decided in a suit. Further, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner had challenged the recovery citation in the earlier writ petition all these question should have been raised by him in that writ petition. It is no longer open to the petitioner to question the citation issued by the respondents which includes the penal interest, and the recovery charges in this second writ petition. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has misused the process of the Court by filing a second writ petition for the same cause of action. Such writ petition is clearly not maintainable and is dismissed. This Court is of the considered opinion that exemplary cost should be imposed upon the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not concealed any material fact and has disclosed every fact in the writ petition. Considering this fact coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a marginal farmer, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. Writ Petition Dismissed.;