Jagdish Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri R.B. Sahai, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 i.e. State Bank of India, Branch Chandausi District Mooradabad.

Petitioner took a loan of Rs. 3,60,000/- from Respondent No. 3 on 14.9.2007 for agricultural purposes (Para-3 of the writ petition). Citation has been issued on 16.8.2010 seeking to recover Rs. 4,51,000/- and odd from the Petitioner. 10% recovery charges have also been added making the total to Rs. 4,96,000/- and odd. Out of the said amount Petitioner has deposited Rs. 70,407/- on 25.9.2010 (para-7 of the writ petition). Out of this amount of Rs. 70,000/- and odd, Rs. 64,000/- have been adjusted towards loan and interest and Rs. 6,400/- towards recovery charges.

If a farmer has not been able to pay the loan along with interest and recovery proceedings have been initiated against him it is rather cruel on the part of the State to extract 10% more from him as recovery charges. The farmers, particularly small farmers, are the most exploited lot in this country. If the price of any thing except food grains rises, no one bothers. It is considered to be sign of development. However, if prices of food grains rise, which may benefit the farmers to some extent, entire country, except the farmers starts crying. Giving big loans to farmers, bigger than their actual, minimum requirement for agricultural purposes, is against their own interest. It is utilized by them for other purposes. Thereafter they are not able to return the same. The Government should re-consider as to whether it is advisable and whether it serves social justice in any manner by charging 10% recovery charges which is quite huge from the farmers.

Charging 10% recovery charges by the Government from the farmers for recovery of loans advanced to them for agricultural purposes may be perfectly in accordance with law. However, in order to justify it the Government will have to shed its facade of being welfare State and dedicated to the idea of social justice. If loans are advanced to the farmers more easily, on lower rates of interest and recoverable in instalments over a long period for the sake of social justice then the same philosophy demands that for recovering the said amount no recovery charges shall be realised from them. Realising 10% recovery charges from a debtor who has not been able to pay the loan and the interest is justified in the name of pure, unabashed and uncontrolled capitalism. It is shocking to the conscience even though it may be legal. It is like flogging a dying man.

Law is a body life of which may be experience (O.W. Holmes). However, its spirit is policy of the Government and conscience of the Court. Both these aspects are guided and affected by various considerations. One of the important considerations is prevailing conditions of the society.

Let the Government take a conscious decision.

It may be required to intimate the Court about the decision in some future case.

Writ petition is disposed of with the direction that whatever unpaid amount remains l/3rd of the same shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the Bank within two months and the remaining amount may be paid in six equal instalments of two months each. The first instalment be paid after two months from the date of first deposit. If the amount is paid as per schedule provided hereinabove, no recovery proceedings shall be taken against the Petitioner and no recovery charges shall be realised from him.

However, if default is committed in payment of any instalment as per the schedule provided above then recovery proceedings for the entire unpaid amount may be resumed.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Chief Standing Counsel for sending the same to the Chief Secretary and Cabinet Secretary.