Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs Sub Divisional Officer (C) Hisar And ... on 19 December, 2014
CR No. 2709 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No. 2709 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 19.12.2014
Satpal ...Petitioner
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Hisar and another ....Respondents
2. CR No. 2710 of 2012 (O&M)
Satpal ...Petitioner
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, Hisar and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
Present: Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
Mr. A.S. Gagrha, Advocate
for respondent no. 2.
R.P. Nagrath, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of CR No. 2709 of 2012 and CR 2710 of 2012.
Both the revisions have been filed by the petitioner to challenge order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent no. 1 whereby application filed by respondent no. 2-Bank under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1973 has been allowed.
For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CR No. 2709 of 2012.
JITENDER KUMAR 2014.12.20 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No. 2709 of 2012 -2-
The main ground of challenge was that the benefit of OTS scheme has not been granted to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that even the Bank has prepared the scheme of benefits that could be granted under the existing policy to the petitioner for which Annexure A-1 is attached with CM No. 8534-CII of 2014.
When the matter was listed on 05.08.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment to get instructions from the petitioner regarding payment of amount to respondent no. 2- Bank but no further affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.
Since the Bank has prepared Annexure A-1 as per existing policy, the instant petition is, therefore, disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make payment of balance amount to the respondent no. 2-Bank. Petitioner would be granted liberty to apply to the Bank for making payment of amount in installments, which the respondent no. 2-Bank would consider sympathetically. If the petitioner still feels aggrieved by any order of fixing the installments, he would also be at liberty to challenge the same but only after he pays the entire outstanding amount.
Respondent no. 2-Bank would also be at liberty to recover the outstanding amount as per policy alongwith interest.
December 19, 2014 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
jk JUDGE
JITENDER KUMAR
2014.12.20 17:04
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh