ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

(1) HEARD Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and P. K. Pandev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned Standing counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the nature of the issues raised in the writ petition, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself, without inviting counter affidavit.

(2) BY means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari, quashing the notice dated July 25, 2007, issued by the Deputy Director/ Recovery Officer asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner be not committed to the civil prison in execution of the certificate for recovery. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for commanding the respondent No. 2 not to take any coercive measure in relation of the impugned notice and further directing the respondents No. 3 and 4 not to harass the petitioner on the basis of the impugned notice.

(3) BRIEF facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner is one of the directors of Company Sri Tirupati Perfumers pvt. Ltd. Th