Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5455 of 2010
Kulbeer Singh
Versus
Punjab National Bank and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in
the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to give benefit
of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008.
Earlier, questioning the validity of recovery proceedings and with the
contention that petitioner’s claim was covered under clause 4.1 (a) (i) of the
Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008, writ petition had been
filed by him, wherein this Court on 05.11.2008 had disposed of the matter
without entering into merits of the claim of petitioner by directing the Branch
Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shadipur, District Bijnor to decide the
representation of the petitioner dated 28.07.2008, by reasoned and speaking
order, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
Petitioner has stated that thereafter he filed representation dated 01.12.2008,
but till date his representation has not been decided and notice dated
25.05.2009 has been sent. Petitioner has stated against the said notice, he
again represented the matter on 18.12.2009 to give benefit of Agricultural
Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008, but said representation also
remained unattended. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
On the matter being taken up today, Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent Bank, opposed the maintainability of present writ petition, on
the ground that relief which has been claimed in this writ petition, qua the
same directives had already been issued by this Court to the Branch Manager
of the respondent bank, and in case grievance of petitioner is non-compliance
of the order passed by this Court, then the remedy of petitioner lies in moving
contempt application, and not the writ petition.
Factual position is that petitioner has been claiming benefit of
Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008, and complaining
2
inaction on the part of respondent Bank in not considering his claim under the
Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008, had earlier filed writ
petition. This Court on 05.11.2009 had given categorical directives to the
Branch Manager of the concerned Bank to decide the petitioner’s
representation dated 28.07.2008, which was clearly in relation to extending
benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008. The order of
this Court dated 05.11.2009 is clear and categorical and the decision ought to
have been taken by the Bank on petitioner’s representation dated 28.07.2008.
Once said application/representation of the petitioner has not been decided in
compliance of the order passed by this court, then remedy of petitioner lies in
moving contempt application and second writ petition for the same relief
certainly cannot be entertained, on the ground that the Branch Manager, who
has joined, has contended that the order passed by this Court was in reference
to his predecessor. All these facts are neither here nor there. As there is
already an order in favour of the petitioner, and in case in compliance thereof
no decision has been taken, the remedy of petitioner lies in moving contempt
petition. Second writ petition is not maintainable.
Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.
03.02.2010.
SRY