Allahabad High Court
HANSRAJ SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed with exemplary costs because the petitioner deliberately concealed material facts relating to earlier proceedings.
Summary
The petitioner, Hansraj Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a Recovery Certificate dated 07/09/2026 for a home loan, claiming the loan had been fully repaid, and requested mandamus to cancel the certificate and halt any coercive recovery measures. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ C No.15702 of 2026, which was disposed on 27/04/2026 directing him to repay the outstanding amount in installments, and a Special Appeal Defective No.470 of 2026 was also dismissed on 23/06/2026. Respondent counsel argued that the petitioner deliberately concealed these prior proceedings in the present petition, constituting wilful misrepresentation. The bench held that such concealment warranted dismissal of the petition and the imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.10,000. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the petitioner was directed to pay the costs within the stipulated time.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑disclosure of earlier related writ proceedings and special appeal warrants dismissal of the present writ petition.
- Whether the Recovery Certificate can be quashed on the ground that the loan has been fully repaid.
- Whether exemplary costs can be imposed for wilful concealment of material facts.
Subjects
- Recovery Certificate
- Mandamus
- Certiorari
- Non‑disclosure
- Exemplary costs
- Bank loan
- Writ petition
- High Court
- Allahabad
- Concealment of facts
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39936 of 2026
Hansraj Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girja Shanker Mishra, Iftekhar Ahmad,
Mohd Ghaus Ali, Pratiksha Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sachin Mishra
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.
1. Heard Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sachin Mishra,
learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following
prayers:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned Recovery Certificate (R.C.) dated 07/09/2026, issued against
the petitioner in respect of Home Loan, whereby an alleged amount of Rs.
5,59,032.00/- has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, despite
the fact that the petitioner has already paid the entire outstanding loan
amount and has discharged his complete liability towards the respondent-
Bank.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2 and 4, to
withdraw/cancel the aforesaid Recovery Certificate and to update the
loan account of the petitioner as fully paid and closed, in accordance with
the payments already made by the petitioner.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondent authorities not to take any coercive or
recovery proceedings against the petitioner or his property pursuant to
WRIC No. 39936 of 2026
2
the impugned Recovery Certificate, including attachment, auction, sale,
dispossession or any other coercive measure in re, in respect of the
aforesaid home loan, as no legally recoverable amount remains
outstanding against the petitioner during the pendency of present Writ
Petition.
3. Today when the matter is taken up, preliminary objection has been
raised by Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that
earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ C No.15702
of 2026 (Hansraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) for quashing the
attachment/recovery notice dated 10.03.2026. The said writ petition was
finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 directing the
petitioner to make payment of entire outstanding amount in installments.
The order dated 27.04.2026 reads as follows:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
respondent-bank.
2. The instant petition has been filed for quashing the
attachment/recovery notice dated 10.03.2026 as well as seeking direction
in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no.5 to
take the loan amount of the petitioner in easy installment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
farmer. The petitioner taken loan of Rs. 3,97,000/- from the respondent
bank. The said facilities were duly sanctioned and disbursed by the
respondent bank. However, owing to acute financial constraints and
adverse circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, he could not
adhere to the repayment schedule within the stipulated time.
Consequently, a recovery citation has been issued against the petitioner,
reflecting an outstanding liability of Rs. 4,37,197/-.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a poor
agriculturist, having limited means of livelihood and no substantial
source of income, and thus is incapable of discharging the entire
outstanding amount in one lump sum. The petitioner is willing to liquidate
the outstanding dues and undertakes to repay the entire amount in an
easy installments. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petitioner may be
WRIC No. 39936 of 2026
3
granted indulgence by permitting him to clear the outstanding liability in
12 easy and reasonable installments, in the interest of justice and equity.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-bank has not
opposed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of reasonable time to
liquidate the outstanding dues, subject to the condition that the petitioner
adheres strictly to the payment schedule.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the
dispute, and the willingness shown by the petitioner to clear the
outstanding dues, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be
served by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to repay the amount in
installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire
outstanding amount in 12 equal monthly installments. The first
installment shall be deposited within a period of one month from today,
and the subsequent installments shall be deposited by the 15th day of
each succeeding month. During the aforesaid period, the impugned
recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.
7. It is made clear that in case of default in payment of any two
consecutive installments, this order shall automatically stand vacated and
the respondent-bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with
law. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
petition stands disposed of.
4. Not satisfied with the aforesaid judgement, Special Appeal Defective
No.470 of 2026 (Hansraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) has been
filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 23.06.2026.
5. It is argued by Sri Sachin Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.5
that concealing the aforesaid facts with deliberate and wilful intention, the
petitioner has preferred the present petition, therefore, the present petition
be dismissed imposing exemplary costs.
6. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance upon paragraph Nos.16 & 17 of the writ petition which reads as
follows:-
WRIC No. 39936 of 2026
4
"16. That the prayer in the earlier Writ was too ready to make the
payment due to which an incorrect order has been passed due to lack of
information.
17. That after the earlier Writ, petitioner has approached the respondent
bank informing the same and also requested to discard the order and also
not recover the unnecessary amount as already petitioner has made more
payment than the Loan was taken. The copy of the Representation dated
12/05/2026 is being H.COMM filed here with and marked as Annexure
No-3 to this writ petition. "
7. From perusal of the entire pleadings as well as the documents appended
with the writ petition, it is clear that only word "Earlier Writ Petition"
has been mentioned and no other details regarding the filing of aforesaid
writ petition as well as Special Appeal Defective has been mentioned in
the writ petition.
8. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has
deliberately and willfully concealed the aforesaid facts while filing the
writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary costs and the same is hereby dismissed with costs of
Rs.10,000/-.
9. The aforesaid cost will be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks
from today in the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad and
place the receipt before the District Magistrate, Varanasi within three
weeks failing which the District Magistrate, Varanasi will recover the
aforesaid amount/cost from the petitioner as land revenue.
10. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate a copy of this
order to District Magistrate, Varanasi forthwith.
(Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
October 1, 2026
saqlain
Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…