Gajraj vs Collector Ghaziabad and Others

O.P. Garg, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner had taken a loan for agricultural purpose. On their default to make payment of the outstanding dues, recovery proceedings have been initiated against him.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, 1990, which has been formulated and floated by the State Government for the protection of the persons who have been advanced petty amount of loan. The moot point for consideration by the authorities concerned is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid scheme or not. This aspect of the controversy cannot be gone into and sifted in writ jurisdiction as it may require scrutiny of controversial facts. The matter of necessity, has to be left for decision by the respondentBank as the point raised in this writ petition has not yet been thrashed out.

This writ petition, therefore, is finally disposed of with the following directions:

(i) That the petitioner shall file a representation/objection alongwith a certified copy of this order within a period of 15 days from today before the Branch Manager of the respondentBank.

(ii) On receipt of the representation/objection, the Branch Manager of the respondentBank shall decide, within a period of one month, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 or not, by a speaking order, which may be passed after hearing the petitioner also.

(iii) In case, the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit of the Schemeaforesaid, the amount, which the petitioner is liable to pay after adjustment of the rebate under the Scheme, if any, shall be intimated to him by registered post or otherwise and the outstanding amount shall be paid by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of communication.

(iv) If the petitioner is not found entitled to the benefit of the Scheme, in that event the entire amount due against the petitioner shall be paid/deposited by him, in lump sum, or in instalments, on or before 31101999.

(v) Till the disposal of the representation/objection, which will be filed by the petitioner as directed above, the recovery proceedings shall not take place.

Needless to say that in view of the decision in Seth Banarsi Das v. District Magistrate/Collector Meerut, (1996) 2 SCC 689 and Mirza Javed Murtaza v. U.P. Financial Corporation Kanpur (AIR 1983 All 234) no collection charges can be levied unless auction takes place or action towards recovery of the amount is taken. In the instant case, if the auction has not taken place, in that event the respondents are not entitled to realise collection charges over and above the rate as prescribed in the Division Bench case of this Court in M/s Asha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (1998) 33 AIR 417). As regards realisation of compound interest, the respondent Bank shall pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda, (1994) 4 SCC 213 in which it has been held that on agricultural loans interest may be charged on yearly rates and on that basis may be compounded if the loan/instalment becomes overdue, as well as, the guidelines circulated by the Reserve Bank of India in this regard.

Since the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank has been directed to dispose of the objection of the petitioner within 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, Registry is directed to ensure that the certified copy of this order is issued to the Counsel for the petitioners within 24 hours positively.