R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Prayer for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to adopt coercive measures against the petitioners in the recovery proceedings has also been made.
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that Ransher, father of the petitioners No. 1 to 5, and Mishrilal, father of the petitioners No. 6 and 7, for short 'the petitioners' applied for grant of loan to the State Bank of India for agricultural purposes. A loan oi Rs. 97,000/- was granted to them. The said amount was paid to the petitioners after execution of an agreement of loan and after pledging 9.74 acres of agricultural land' situated in village Shakoorgarij, district Mathura. According to the petitioners, they have been repaying the amount of loan as agreed upon between the parties. It was on -6.7.1999 that an amount of Rs. 13,671/- was shown as the balance in their pass book. It would not be out of place to state that in the meanwhile, Ransher and Mishrilal have died and the petitioners who are sons of the deceased loanees have been thereafter paying the amount of loan. It is stated that in the month of April, 2001 a notice was served upon them by the bank demanding an amount of Rs. 43,959/-. The petitioners on receipt of the notice filed a representation contending that in the passbook only an amount of Rs. 13,671/- was shown as balance, therefore, there was no justification for demanding of Rs. 43,459/-. Thereafter it is stated that a recovery certificate was issued against them to recover an amount of Rs. 2,10,336/- as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners thereafter wrote a letter to the Branch Manager to furnish them a statement of account but no reply was received from him. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioners were willing to pay the amount which was actually outstanding against them and was shown in their passbook but the respondents were insisting to pay the amount of Rs. 2,10,336/-, which was highly unreasonable and arbitrary. Hence the present petition.
(3.) This Court vide order dated 9.5.2001 granted time to the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 to file counter affidavit and until further orders of this Court stayed the recovery proceedings, subject to the condition the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of two months. In the event of default it was directed that the interim order would automatically stand vacated. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 a counter affidavit has been filed alongwith which a copy of the agreement of loan has also been filed as Annexure No. 2. In the counter affidavit the facts stated in the writ petition have been denied and it has been asserted that the petitioners have committed default in repayment of the loan consequently the recovery proceedings were initiated against them to recover the amount of loan as sell as the amount of interest and recovery charges. It has also been stated that the petitioners have agreed to pay compound interest on the amount due against them, according to the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties, they were, therefore, liable to pay the amount as demanded by the respondents.;