{"id":183894,"date":"2010-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-01T22:08:08","modified_gmt":"2017-11-01T16:38:08","slug":"chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                         1\n\n                                                     Reserved Judgment\n                                                     Chief Justice's Court\n\n                    Special Appeal No.1036 of 2010\n                Chinta Mani Vs. State of U.P. and others\n\n                                  ****\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J<\/p>\n
      The appellant is a borrower. He took a loan from the respondent –
\nState Bank of India, Branch Dibai, to the tune of Rs. 2 Lacs for the
\npurchase of a Tractor. The appellant admittedly defaulted in making
\nrepayment of the said agricultural loan that was disbursed in the year
\n2001. Consequently, recovery proceedings were initiated and a Citation
\nof recovery was issued for recovery of the amount of loan as arrears of
\nland revenue under the provisions of the U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land
\nReforms Act, 1950 read with the 1952 Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      The challenge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal was to
\nthe Citation of recovery dated 3.4.2010 whereby a sum of Rs.
\n2,17,000\/- was sought to be recovered together with 10% recovery
\ncharges. The learned single Judge upon the concession made by the
\nappellant – petitioner that he is ready to pay the entire amount of loan
\nwith interest in easy installments, proceeded to pass an order on
\n25.5.2010 fixing the time period for the repayment and if the said
\nschedule was adhered to, it was also provided in condition No. II that in
\ncase the installments are deposited in the Bank, then half of the
\ncollection charges only shall be recovered from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the grievance now
\nonly remains with regard to half of the recovery charges that are to be
\nrecovered from the appellant under the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel has cited 5
\ndecisions before us. The first decision is in the case of Ram Niwas Vs.
\nState of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No.260 of 2010 decided on
\n22.3.2010; the second decision is in Bed Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
\nand others, Writ Petition No.14518 of 2008 decided on 18.3.2008; the
\n                                                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
third decision is in the case of Satish Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ
\nPetition No.9483 of 2002 decided on 6.3.2002; the fourth decision is in
\nthe case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ
\nPetition No.33704 of 2006 decided on 3.7.2006; and fifth decision relied
\non is in the case of Mirza Javed Murtaza Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation,
\nAIR 1983 Allahabad 234 (Paragraph No.16).\n<\/p>\n
      On the strength of the said decisions, learned counsel contends
\nthat since no steps for actual recovery of the amount had been
\nundertaken, the respondents are not entitled to realise any collection
\ncharges from the petitioner. He further submits that mere issuance of
\nCitation by itself is of no consequence as it does not amount to an
\nundertaking of actual steps for recovery.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned Standing Counsel Sri Pipersenia, on the other hand,
\ncontends that the recovery is made in view of the provisions of Section
\n279 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act read with the Rules framed thereunder.
\nHe submits that the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
\nthe decisions relied on do not consider the impact of the provisions of
\nsub-section (2) of Section 279 of 1950 Act. He contends that the legal
\nposition cannot be diluted and the decisions that have been relied upon
\nby the learned counsel for the petitioner are founded on concessions
\nextended by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution which cannot be said to be laying
\ndown a law for waiving recovery charges after the issuance of a Citation
\nby the Collector. He, therefore, submits that the said decisions are
\nclearly distinguishable and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      Before proceeding to consider the impact of the judgments relied
\nupon by the learned counsel for the appellant, it deserves to be
\nmentioned that the recovery in the present matter arises out of a
\nCitation issued by the Collector of the district for recovering the
\ndefaulted amount of loan from the appellant as arrears of land revenue.
\nThe said recovery is being made under Section 279 of the U.P.Z.A. &
\nL.R. Act 1950 which is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
      “279. Procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue.-
\n      [1] An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by anyone
\n      or more of the following process:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) by serving a writ of demand or a citation to
\n            appear on any defaulter;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) by arrest and detention of his person;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c)   by attachment and sale of his moveable property
\n            including produce;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the
\n            arrear is due;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (e) [by lease or sale] of the holding in respect of which
\n            the arrear is due;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (f)   by attachment and sale of other immovable property
\n            of the defaulter, [and]
\n            [(g) by appointing a receiver of any property, moveable or
\n            immovable of the defaulter.]
\n            [(2) The costs of any of the processes mentioned in
\n            sub-section        (1) shall be added to and be
\n            recoverable in the same manner as the arrear of
\n            land revenue.]”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The Citation, which has been appended along with the writ
\npetition is in Form 69 as provided for in Rule 236 of the U.P. Zamindari
\nAbolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952, which is quoted below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “236. Writs, citations, warrants of arrest and
\n            warrants of attachment of movable property shall be
\n            in the Z.A. Form 68, 69, 70 and 71. They shall be
\n            signed by the issuing officer and sealed with his
\n            official seal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The writ or the Citation has to be issued under orders of the
\nCollector under the provision of Section 280 of the Act read with Rule
\n241 of the Rules. Rule 242 of the 1952 Rules sounds a caution that
\nbefore proceeding to take any other coercive process like arrest,
\ndetention or attachment, the Citation to appear should be issued as a
\nprimary step ordinarily. The question, which has been raised by the
\nlearned counsel for the appellant, is with regard to the extent of charges
\nto be realized by way of collection at the stage of issuance of a citation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
For this, a reference may be had to Rule 243 of the 1952 Rules, which is
\nquoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
            “[243. The fee charged for the issue of a writ of
\n            citation to appear shall be rupees two. This fee shall
\n            be added to the arrears to which the writ or citation is
\n                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
            issued, and shall be included in the amount specified
\n            therein.]”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      If the defaulter does not respond to the said citation, then further
\ncoercive steps as provided for can be taken. A perusal of Rule 243
\nwould indicate that there is a specific fee of Rs. 2\/- that is authorized to
\nbe included along with the amount as a fee for the memo of citation.
\nThe question to be examined is as to whether the costs of recovery as
\ncollection charges can be further imposed saddling the borrower with a
\nliability of 10% collection charges upon issuance of a citation.\n<\/p>\n
      There is a notable aspect of the manner of serving the citation. It
\nhas to be done as per Rule 246 quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
            “246. (1) Service of the writ or citation shall, if possible be
\n            made on the defaulter personally, but if service cannot be
\n            made on the defaulter it may be made on his agent. If the
\n            defaulter or his agent cannot be found or if there is more
\n            than one defaulter against whom a writ or citation has
\n            issued a copy of the writ or citation may be fixed at a
\n            prominent place on or adjacent to the defaulter’s residence.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2) Personal service shall be made by delivery to the
\n            defaulter or his agent of the foil of the writ of citation. The
\n            other portion shall be brought back to the tahsil by the
\n            process-server and attached to the counterfoil. When
\n            returning this portion, the process-server shall report to the
\n            officer whom the tahsildar may appoint for served and if it
\n            was not served on the defaulter personally, the reason why
\n            it was not served. The official receiving the report shall note
\n            the particulars on the process, if this has not been done
\n            already.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (3) With the sanction of the Collector, writs of demand may
\n            also be served by registered post. In such cases the post
\n            office receipt shall be attached to the counterfoil.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The Rule, therefore, requires the service through a process server.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It can be done through the Collection Amin or Collection peon of the
\ndepartment. They are employed and paid from the State Exchequer. It,
\ntherefore, cannot be said that no actual expenses have been incurred
\nfor serving a citation which is also one of the modes of recovery. It is for
\nthis reason that costs have been separately provided for apart from the
\n                                                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
fee of the memo of citation under Rule 243 of 1952 Rules. The mode of
\nservice through registered post is provided for with the permission of
\nthe Collector additionally. The amount of actual expenses are a different
\nissue which can be calculated under the Act and Rules subject to the
\nmaximum of 10% of the principal amount but the power to levy is
\ntraceable to the provisions indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
      The legislative background that authorises the Collector to
\nproceed to realise such collection charges has been dealt with in a
\ncontroversy that came to be considered by a Division Bench of our Court
\nin the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and
\nothers, reported in 1999 (2) AWC 1201. The said decision took notice of
\nanother Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has been relied
\nupon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mirza Javed
\nMurtaza (supra).\n<\/p>\n
      The matter was proceeded with and the learned Judges of the
\nDivision Bench differed in their opinions in relation to the issues involved
\nparticularly relating to the question of recovery of 10% collection
\ncharges under the garb of the Government Order dated 30.8.1974. This
\ndifference of opinion was referred to a third Hon’ble Judge and the
\nmajority opinion ruled that such recovery on the mere issuance of a
\ncitation was not leviable. The opinion of the Hon’ble third Judge is
\nreported in 1999 (2) AWC 1218 delivered on 13.11.1998. Accordingly,
\nthe final judgment was delivered on 20.11.1998 which is reported in
\n1999 (2) AWC 1220 holding that the recovery could not include the
\namount of collection charges on mere issuance of a citation. The
\njudgment was given a prospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
      At this juncture, it would be relevant to point out that in respect of
\nrecovery under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 read with
\nAgricultural Credit Rules 1975, there is a specific provision in Rule 29 of
\nthe U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules authorizing recovery of 10%           of
\nexpenses of recovery once the process has started.\n<\/p>\n
      The aforesaid Division Bench was noticed by a learned single
\n                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge of this Court in the decision of Smt. Vidya Devi Vs. Collector,
\nMahoba and others, 1999 (3) AWC 1885, wherein the learned single
\nJudge in paragraph no.5 ruled as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “5. Sub-section (2) of Section 279 provides that the
\n            cost of any of the processes mentioned in sub-section
\n            (1) shall be added to be recoverable in the same
\n            manner as the arrears of land revenue. Sub-section
\n            (2) was added by U.P. Act No.12 of 1965 with
\n            retrospective effect. It is clear from this provision
\n            that the costs of process can be recovered even if the
\n            sale had not taken place if the realisation of the
\n            amount has been made as arrears of land revenue by
\n            any of the modes prescribed under Section 279 of the
\n            Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The Court further went on to consider the impact of the Division
\nBench judgment and held that the recovery of cost in each of the
\ndifferent processes are different. The conclusions drawn are in
\nparagraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the said judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      Faced with the aforesaid legal position pronounced by this Court,
\nthe State Government in order to justify such collections enacted U.P.
\nAct No.37 of 2001 titled as Revenue Recovery (U.P. Amendment) Act
\n2001 giving it a retrospective effect from 30.8.1974. This was obviously
\nenacted to overcome the ratio of the decision in Mahalakshmi Sugar
\nMill’s case (supra). The provision that was brought forth clearly indicates
\nthe reason for the same as stated in objects and reasons quoted
\nbelow:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
\n                   The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 inter alia, provides
\n            for the procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue
\n            or a sum recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue. The
\n            State Government has, vide G.O. No.285\/11-69 (II-876)-
\n            Revenue-7, dated August 26, 1974, directed for recovery of
\n            collection charge equal to ten per cent of the amount stated
\n            in the recovery certificate, in addition to the amount stated
\n            in the recovery certificate. The High Court of Judicature at
\n            Allahabad has, vide its order dated November 20, 1998 in
\n            Writ Petition No.29612 of 1992, M\/s. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills
\n            Ltd. V. State of U.P. and others, quashed the said
\n            Government Order mainly on the ground that the said Act
\n            as also the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Recovery Rules, 1966 do
\n                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
           not provide for recovery of collection charge in addition to
\n           the amount stated in the recovery certificate. The State
\n           Government filed Special leave Petition No.6192 of 1999
\n           against the said order of the High Court. The Supreme Court
\n           while granting the leave applied for, did not stay the
\n           operation of the said order of the High Court. It has,
\n           therefore, been decided to withdraw the said Special Leave
\n           Petition and to amend the said Act to provide for the
\n           recovery of collection charge also at the rate not exceeding
\n           ten per cent of the amount stated in the recovery certificate
\n           and to validate the recoveries already made in pursuance of
\n           the said Government Order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  The Revenue Recovery (Uttar Pradesh Amendment)
\n           Bill, 2001 is introduced accordingly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The amendments that have been incorporated for authorising the
\nrealisation of costs to the maximum of 10% would be evident from the
\nsame which is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
 “THE REVENUE RECOVERY (UTTAR PRADESH AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
\n                         (U.P. Act No.37 of 2001)
\n               (As passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature)
\n                                    AN
\n                                   ACT
\n      Further to amend the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 in its
\napplication to Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
      It is hereby enacted in the Fifty-second Year of the Republic of
\nIndia as follow:\n<\/p>\n
  1. Short title, extent and commencement.– (1) This Act may be
\n     called the Revenue Recovery (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act,
\n     2001.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)It shall extend to the whole of Uttar Pradesh.
\n     (3)It shall be deemed to have come into force on August 30,
\n     1974.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Amendment of Section 3 of Act No.1 of 1890.– In Section
\n     3 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, hereinafter referred to as the
\n     principal Act, for sub-section (3) the following sub-sections shall
\n     be substituted, namely:\n<\/p>\n
     “(3) The Collector of the other district shall, on receiving the
\n     certificate, proceed to recovery the amount stated therein,
\n     together with the costs of the recovery, as if it were an arrear of
\n     land revenue which had accrued in his own district.\n<\/p>\n
     (3-a)The costs of the recovery under sub-section (3) shall
\n     be such as may be specified by the State Government by
\n     notification but the amount of such costs shall not exceed
\n                                                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
ten per cent of the amount stated in the certificate.”\n<\/p>\n
  3. Amendment of Section 4.– In Section 4 of the principal
\n     Act,–\n<\/p>\n
     (a) in sub section (1)–\n<\/p>\n
     (i) for the words “pays the same” the words “pays the same
\n     together with the costs referred to in sub-section (3a) of the
\n     said section” shall be substituted;\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) for the words “repayment of the amount” the words
\n     “repayment of the amount stated in the certificate” shall be
\n     substituted;\n<\/p>\n
   (b) after sub-section (4) the following sub-section shall be
\n     inserted, namely:\n<\/p>\n
     “(5) where a suit instituted under sub-section (2) is
\n     decreed, wholly or partly, the Court shall also direct that the
\n     defaulter shall be repaid the proportionate costs paid by him
\n     under sub-section (1).”\n<\/p>\n
  4. Amendment of Section 5.– In Section 5 of the principal
\n     Act, for sub-section (3) the following sub-sections shall be
\n     substituted, namely:\n<\/p>\n
     “(3) The Collector shall, on receipt of the certificate under
\n     sub-section (1), proceed to recover the amount stated
\n     therein, together with the costs of the recovery as if the
\n     amount stated in the certificate were payable to himself and
\n     such costs were also an arrear of land revenue.\n<\/p>\n
     (3a) The costs of the recovery under sub-section (3)
\n     shall be such as may be specified by the State
\n     Government by notification but the amount of such
\n     costs shall not exceed ten per cent of the amount
\n     stated in the certificate.”\n<\/p>\n
     5. Amendment of Section 6.– In Section 6 of the
\n     principal Act, —\n<\/p>\n
     (a) in sub-section (2) for the words “in the certificate” the
\n     words “in the certificate together with the costs of the
\n     recovery” shall be substituted;\n<\/p>\n
     (b) In sub-section (3) for the words “in the certificate” the
\n     words “in the certificate or the costs of such recovery” shall
\n     be substituted;\n<\/p>\n
     (c) in sub-section (4) for the words “in a certificate” the
\n     words “in a certificate or the costs of such recovery” shall be
\n     substituted;\n<\/p>\n
     6. Amendment of Section 10.– For Section 10 of the
\n     principal Act, the following section shall be substituted,
\n     namely:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                          9<\/span><\/p>\n
            “10. Duty of Collectors to remit moneys collected in certain
\n            cases.– Where a Collector receives a certificate under this
\n            Act from the Collector of another district or from any other
\n            public officer or from any local authority he shall remit the
\n            sum recovered by him by virtue of that certificate to the
\n            Collector or the other public officer or the local authority
\n            after deducting the sum recovered as costs of the recovery.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7.    Validation     and     Consequential        provisions.–
\n            Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any
\n            Court, the costs of a recovery recovered over and above the
\n            amount stated in the certificate referred to in Section 3 or
\n            Section 5 of the principal Act from a defaulter under an
\n            order of the State Government, shall be deemed to have
\n            been validly recovered under the principal Act as amended
\n            by this Act and no defaulter shall be entitled for refund of
\n            such costs, and if such costs have not been so recovered the
\n            same shall be recoverable from the defaulter under the
\n            corresponding provisions of the principal Act as amended by
\n            this Act as if the provisions of the principal Act as amended
\n            by this Act were in force at all material times.”<\/p>\n
      A perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 279 of the 1950 Act
\nempowers the Collector to add the cost of any of the processes
\nmentioned in sub-section (1) in the Recovery Citation and the same has
\nbeen made recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.
\nThe aforesaid provision, therefore, being the charging section , clearly
\nempowers the recovery of costs of processes mentioned in sub-section
\n(1). Clause (a) of sub-section 1 is also one of the processes provided for
\nmaking recovery of an arrears of land revenue. The said sub-section
\nrecites that the recovery can be made by serving a writ of demand or a
\ncitation to appear on any defaulter. Thus, the provision itself indicates
\nthe service of a writ of demand or a Citation as one of the processes by
\nwhich the recovery can be made. The other processes thereafter follow
\nnamely arrest, detention, adjustment and sale or lease including
\nmovable and immovable property. In the instant case, we are only
\nconcerned with the issuance of a Citation as according to the appellant,
\nthe other processes of arrest, detention, adjustment and sale have not
\nbeen undertaken and it is at the stage of issuance of the Citation that
\nthe appellant had filed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
      The contention on behalf of the appellant that no such collection
\ncharges can be realised, to our mind, does not appear to be correct
\ninasmuch as sub-section (2) also empowers the Collector to realise
\ncosts of recovery even where the processes adopted is by serving a writ
\nof demand or a Citation to appear. Sub-section 2 of Section 279 does
\nnot contemplate that some other actual process apart from the issuance
\nof Citation should be undertaken for raising a liability of recovery
\ncharges. Sub-section 2 would apply independently to clause (a) of sub-
\nsection 1. The provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act 1890 and the
\nRules framed thereunder as noted above supplement the aforesaid
\nprocedure for realising collection charges as well.\n<\/p>\n
      The impact of the said provisions have not been noticed in any of
\nthe other cases that have been relied upon by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner. The judgment in detail with regard to realisation of
\ncollection charges which has been referred to in para 16 of the decision
\nin the case of Mirza Javed Murtaza (supra) is in relation to the processes
\nof sale of immovable property under Rule 284 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R.
\nRules. The Division Bench observed that the loan that was sought to be
\nrecovered therein was extended by the U.P. Financial Corporation and
\nthe Managing Director of the Corporation can only ask the Collector to
\nrecover the amount as arrears of land revenue. The Court further went
\non to observe that what would be the actual cost of the proceeding
\nwould naturally be ascertained when the costs are actually incurred. The
\nsaid observations were made in relation to Rule 284 of the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules which are in relation to sale
\nof immovable property. The ratio of the said decision would not be
\nattracted hereunder inasmuch as that was a case where a process of
\ndistress by sale of immovable property had been undertaken. The said
\ndecision has nowhere considered the impact of sub-section 2 of Section
\n279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act as referred to
\nherein above. In view of the said position as also the subsequent
\namendments as noticed above, the ratio of the said decision would,
\ntherefore, not apply on the facts that have emerged in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, we are of the opinion that so far as the law is
\n                                                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
concerned, the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 279 do not contain
\nany provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where a
\nCitation has been issued under sub-section 1 of the said provision. The
\ncharging section itself empowers the Collector to raise such demand
\nsubject to the rules and the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act
\n(U.P. Act No.37 of 2007) referred to herein above.\n<\/p>\n
      There are no provisions introduced in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
\nand Land Reforms Act 1950 for the levy of 10% collection charges but
\nthe Revenue Recovery Act 1890 has been amended as noted above.
\nThere is no challenge to the vires of the amendments introduced
\nthrough U.P. Act No.37 of 2007. Accordingly, we do not propose to
\nexamine the issue any further.\n<\/p>\n
      It is something different that the High Court in the exercise of its
\nextra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
\nproceeds to make certain observations or grant concessions on the
\npeculiar facts of individual cases. The same, in our opinion, would not
\namount to laying down an absolute proposition that the recovery
\ncharges cannot be realized even where only a Citation has been issued.
\nThe Court in it’s discretion may pass orders but that would not amount
\nto dilute the impact of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 279 of
\nthe 1950 Act. The contention, therefore, raised by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant that the decision relied upon by him mandate complete
\nwaiver of collection charges cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
      The appellant has not raised any challenge to the procedure
\nadopted by the respondents and there is no foundation for the same. He
\nhas agreed to the repayment in easy installments. There is no pleading
\nor material to demonstrate as to why and how the amount of 10%
\ncollection charges now reduced to half under the impugned judgment is
\nexcessive or miscalculated. The statute as quoted above provides for an
\nouter limit of recovery of 10% of the principal amount as collection
\ncharges. It, therefore, can be a matter of contest before the competent
\nauthority if the collection charges are in violation of any procedure or
\nare being imposed excessively. In the absence of any material or
\n                                                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
foundation to that effect in the writ petition, this issue cannot be made
\nthe basis for interference with the discretion exercised by the learned
\nsingle Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     So far as the grant of concession is concerned, we have examined
\nthe judgment of the learned single Judge and we find that the learned
\nsingle Judge has, taking a compassionate view of the matter, waived off
\n50% of the recovery charges.\n<\/p>\n
     In such an event and in view of the reasons given herein above,
\nwe are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction to interfere with the
\nimpugned order. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Dt. 5.7.2010
\nIrshad\n <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 1 Reserved Judgment Chief Justice’s Court Special Appeal No.1036 of 2010 Chinta Mani Vs. State of U.P. and others **** Hon’ble Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J. Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J The appellant is a borrower. He took a loan from the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-183894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4066,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010"},"wordCount":4066,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010","name":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-01T16:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinta-mani-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-5-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinta Mani vs State Of U.P. & Ors. on 5 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=183894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/183894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=183894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=183894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=183894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}