Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Vinayjit Lal Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the respondents in both the special appeals and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.4/Union of India in Special Appeal No.722 of 2012.
These are two special appeals (Special Appeal No.85 of 2014; State of U.P. and others Vs. Jai Singh and another and Special Appeal No.722 of 2012; Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Vs. Jai Singh and others) filed by the State of U.P. and the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India respectively.
Both the above Special appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.07.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4192 (MS) of 2009; Jai Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with cost of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lacs), 50 per cent of which shall be borne by the Bank and rest by the revenue authorities and the State. The cost has already been paid by the revenue authorities and the State as well as by the Bank in the ratio of 50 per cent each.
As per the factual matrix of the case, the respondent-Jai Singh, resident of Village Maroofpur, Post Mohammadpur, Tehsil Haidergarh, District Barabanki possessed certain land and for the purpose of cultivation thereof and others decided to purchase a tractor. He looked towards Union Bank of India Branch at Barabanki for financial assistance and applied for advancement of loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the year 2000. The loan was sanctioned on 12.12.2000. It appears that petitioner could not deposit regular installments and committed default. The Bank allegedly issued several notices. It also appears that a recovery certificate was issued by Bank on 26.05.2003 and a sum of Rs. 2,70,606/- plus interest w.e.f. 01.03.2003 was demanded from the respondent.
The aforesaid recovery certificate could not be executed and in the meantime the Bank also accepted certain payments from respondent though not constituting regular installments.
The Government of India in the meantime came with a debt relief scheme, namely, "Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008" whereunder the respondent was found entitled for waiver of a sum of Rs. 2,21,017/-. It is the admitted case that the respondent was entitled for the said benefit and consequently the aforesaid amount was reimbursed to Bank by Government of India and it was adjusted towards the outstanding dues against respondent vide certificate of waiver dated 18.09.2008. It is admitted by appellants that after the said adjustment only a sum of Rs. 47,059/- plus interest w.e.f. 01.04.2008 remained outstanding against respondent. However, despite having issued certificate of waiver dated 18.09.2008, the appellant-Bank issued a recovery certificate for Rs. 2,11,534/-. The exact date of aforesaid recovery certificate has not been stated by any of the parties but this is evident from record that the respondent when represented that recovery proceedings initiated against him is illegal the appellant-Bank issued a revised recovery certificate on 24.01.2009 mentioning the amount claimed to be recovered from respondent as Rs. 47,059/- plus interest at the rate of 12.50% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2003, though in the waiver certificate the balance was Rs. 47,059/- plus interest w.e.f. 01.04.2008.
It is the case of the appellants that since the said amount of Rs.47,059/- along with interest was not paid the tractor of the respondent was auctioned for Rs.63,823/- and the balance amount was returned to the respondent.
Learned Single Judge taking serious note of the facts of matter, particularly with respect to the manner in which the recovery proceedings were held and considering the plight of the poor respondent came to the conclusion that nothing has been placed on record by the revenue authorities to take the Court into confidence to demonstrate that auction was held validly and strictly in accordance with law. Even this has not been informed as to what was the date notified for such auction and in what manner. It is only on 31.07.2009 but abruptly the auction is said to have been made and amount received from auction purchaser has been deposited in Bank on the same date though under the statute, such an amount was liable to be deposited through a Bank Draft. All these facts lead to an inference that appellants have not proceeded in a transparent, valid and just manner.
Learned Single Judge has observed that there is something fishy in the matter and their action besides being illegal is also malicious in law. Somebody somewhere was definitely interested to snatch respondent's property in one or the other way and in this attempt has also succeeded considerably.
Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that not only wholly illegal proceedings were initiated against respondent which have resulted in depriving him of his Tractor, sold unauthorizedly by the appellants in a manner which has no sanction in law. It has and must have also caused serious harassment, embarrassment etc. to the respondent and his family in various ways. The respondent's property has been snatched away and he has been deprived thereof by following a procedure which has no sanction in law. Learned Single Judge has held that the respondent has been deprived of his property and, therefore, his constitutional right under Article 300-A has been violated. Besides, by keeping respondent under threat of coercive method of recovery has also been put to unnecessary harassment and deprivation of his fundamental right to live his life peacefully and with dignity resulting in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Special Appeal No.85 of 2014 as well as Mr. Vinayjit Lal Verma learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Special Appeal No.722 of 2012 have not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, except saying that the cost imposed by learned Single Judge was exorbitant.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the records.
We are of the view that since the cost has already been deposited by the appellants, we do not find it expedient in the interest of justice to reconsider the quantum of cost imposed and, as such, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
The special appeals lack merit and same are dismissed accordingly.
.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.) Order Date :- 27.7.2021 Ram.