Judgment / Order

18/08/2021 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Bank seeking the following reliefs:-

“(i) That, the respondent-Employer may kindly be directed for providing the due amount of loan to the petitioner-Bank from account of borrower.

(ii) That, the respondent-Employer may further be directed that due amount of loan along with interest from the account of the borrower may kindly be released in favor of petitioner-Bank.

(iii) That, it is further prayed that respondent-Employer may be directed that petitioner-Bank be not deprived from the recoverable due amount of loan, with out having legal ground.

(iv) That, any other relief for which the petitioner-Bank is entitled in eye of law may kindly be granted.

It is therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed with cost.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner- Bank has submitted that the petitioner-Bank has advanced a loan of Rs. 4,60,000/- on 03.09.2014 to one Sugan Chand, who was working as a Teacher with the Government of Rajasthan. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the duration of the said loan was 60 months and Sugan Chand was required to repay the said loan through monthly installments. It is argued that Sugan Chand has submitted his salary certificate issued by his employer with a letter authorizing his employer to deduct the installments for repayment of the loan from his salary account. In the said authorization letter, it is clearly mentioned that, in case, if he ceases to be employee for any reason, he will authorize his employer for recovery of the full remaining loan amount from the amount due and payable to him towards his dues receivable as bonus, gratuity etc. and to remit the same to the said bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 60 of the Multi State Cooperative Society Act, 2002, an employer of a borrower is bound to deduct monthly installments of the loan from the salary account of the borrower. It is submitted that unfortunately, Sugan Chand expired in the year 2019, however, after his death, his employer i.e. respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are not deducting the monthly installments and are not repaying the loan advanced to deceased Sugan Chand and, as such, the respondents are acting illegally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank has, therefore, prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition may be kindly granted.

Having heard learned counsel to the petitioner-Bank and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that for the purpose of recovery of the loan amount advanced to a borrower, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and the petitioner-Bank cannot use this Court as a mere recovery agency for the purpose of recovery of loan advanced to any borrower. The petitioner-

Bank can take recourse for recovery of loan under the Law.

Hence, I am not inclined to grant the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

18-mohit/-

Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)