RAVI S.DHAVAN,J. - (1.) THERE is no issue on facts in this case about challenging the recovery for the realisation of loan as a public debt. The petitioner admits that he is the President of Jari Kadhai Audhyogik Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Ltd., 99, Siglapur, Bareilly. The activity of the Society; aforesaid, was for the propagation of Jari work amongst artisans. It is admitted that the Society received loan in 1982, 14 years ago, of Rs. 9,900/ - as financial assistance from Zila Udyog Kendra, Bareilly, respondent No. 3. It is also admitted that at the rate of Rs. 1,860/ - in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, instalments were paid. It is also admitted that thereafter the payment to discharge the loan was not paid. Thus, as the instalments may have mitigated the interest, on whatever arrears remained as principal continued with yet more as interest added. The undischarged loan swelled to a sum of Rs. 13,361.90 p., which ultimately became the recovery certificate.
(2.) THE Court is not inclined to interfere in this petition. The petitioner submits that by law the loan cannot be recovered as a public debt as the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 ought to have been taken into account by Zila Udyog Kendra, Bareilly, respondent No. 3 before processing the recovery proceedings. The Court is of the opinion that in equity the discretionary relief to quash a recovery proceeding ought not to be considered. Today, the time has come at least to recognise that large number of loans which have remained undischarged over the years do remain as debts. On the logic of law exemption is being sought, whatever be the reason, that the loan be waived. To do so some authority has to consider it. The fact of the matter is that of loans which remain unpaid as public debts this circumstance infuses a syndrome of deficit financing into the national economy of every loan which will not be paid but having been granted as a public debt, the incidence will fall on other citizens to he realised by indirect taxes. One man 'smeat will become another man 'spoison. In the present case that a loan was taken and that it remains undischarged is an accepted fact. The Court is not inclined to interfere in this writ petition by a prerogative writ to grant a relief which the petitioner seeks. The petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Writ dismissed.;