Binod Kumar Roy, P.K. Jain, JJ. - (1.) TWO -fold prayers have been made by the petitioner in this writ petition: (i) to quash the recovery proceedings by grant of a writ of certiorari, and (ii) to command the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 25.4.1988 as contained in Annexure -3. The petitioner asserts to this effect: - - He is an illiterate agriculturist which is his only source of livelihood. Some time in 1960 he was persuaded to become a member of Lalganj Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd., district Mirzapur and he was granted a loan of Rs. 170/ -, the said loan was repaid in full in 1961; it transpired to him that some amount of loan was alleged to have been taken by him and accordingly he made a report to the Co -operative authorities on which an enquiry was made and some bunglings in the distribution of loans to the farmers/members were brought to the notice of the Head of the Co -operative Societies. A complaint was also made to the Special Inquiry Bureau which found the Upadhyaksha Krishna Prasad Upadhya and supervisor Indrasan Rai of the Lalganj Sahkari Samiti to be responsible for the criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery and a charge -sheet was submitted against them; trial of the afore -mentioned persons commenced by the Munsif -Magistrate (II), Varanasi, during pendency of which Indrasan Rai died and the trial abated against him; Upadhyaksha Krishna Prasad Upadhya was given benefit of doubt and acquitted vide judgment and order dated 21.9.1982 as contained in Annexure -1; the petitioner was not informed thereafter of the fact that any amount of loan was due from him, rather all of a sudden he received a notice of demand (as contained in Annexure 2) No. 6 -Sah. dated March Nil, 1988 in regard to a sum of Rs. 1620.00 as principal, Rs. 2580.00 interest plus Rs. 425/ - Deegar to be deposited by 30.4.1988; some coercive action was also taken and thereafter he filed an application dated 25.4.1988 alleging that he had not received any sum and hence this writ petition.
(2.) WE are handicapped as we do not find any counter affidavit by any one of the respondents. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the non -rebuttal of the allegations of the petitioner, prays for granting the desired relief. Mr. Hasnain, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended, that as the petitioner has not brought on record any document pertaining to the recovery proceedings, the said proceedings cannot be quashed. In this context he also placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in Surinder Singh v. Central Government : AIR 1986 SC 2166. In regard to the second prayer, he very fairly conceded that if it is a fact that the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of, the same be directed to be disposed of.
(3.) AGREEING with the submissions of Mr. Hasnain, we reject prayer No. 1 and in regard to prayer No. 2, we direct disposal of the petitioner's representation by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if not already disposed of, within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order from any quarter.;