B. D. Agrawal, J. - (1.) ON February 5, 1975, Imdad Husain, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners took on loan a sum of Rs. 38,000/- from the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development, Branch Chakiya, district Varanasi, repayable in instalments with interest. The loan taken was for the purpose of purchase of a tractor. The borrower did make purchase of a tractor from the money advanced to him. The tractor was hypothecated with the Bank in addition to the security furnished by mortgage of 13.22 acres of land. A sum of Rs. 1500/- only was paid back by him to the Bank on May 25, 1975. Imdad Husain died on January 16, 1976. The petitioners claim to have made payment of a sum of Rs. 18,155/- during the period of February 24, 1977 to January 1981. In view of the default incurred the State Bank issued Certificate of Recovery under Section 11-A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 to the Collector district Varanasi. Subsequent to this a sum of Rs. 6000/- was allegedly paid by the petitioners in three instalments of Rs 2000/- each during March 31, 1986, to September 3, 1986. For the balance remaining unpaid, there was attachment made of the tractor aforementioned on January 9, 1987. Aggrieved against the recovery being proceeded against, the petitioners have preferred this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) WE have heard Sri Ram Niwas Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In so far as the vires of Section 11-A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 is concerned, the same was raised in issue on the footing of Article 14 of the Constitution recently in Trijugi Narain Tewari v. Gorakhpur Kshettriya Gramin Bank, AIR 1986 Alld. 115 before a Division Bench. Upon a review of the case law on the subject and a detailed consideration the Bench concluded that the provision aforementioned is not arbitrary and is not hit by Article 14. In paragraph 19 it was observed : - " To recapitulate, the object was early recovery of moneys given to agriculturists by way of financial assistance. This procedure was provided as experience had shown that despite Sec. 11, moneys were being held up. Consequently Sec. 11-A was inserted which provided for various modes of recovery by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. Recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue is speedier way or method to recover the amount claimable from the persons from whom recoveries are being made. A citizen has a right of equal treatment, but he in the grab of equal treatment cannot be permitted not to pay the government dues or public money. A defaulter has no right to prolong the proceedings of recovery which, in fact, appears to be the purpose of the argument advanced for declaring Sec. 11-A to be void on the ground of Art. 14 of the Constitution ". Learned counsel does not challenge the validity of the statutory provisions before us but contends that this could not be made applicable to the facts hereof since, it is submitted, Section 11-A applies to recovery in case of personal security. The submission is devoid of merit. The heading which Section 11-A bears is no doubt " Recovery in case of Personal Security ". But a perusal of the contents shows that there is nothing absolutely to confine the same to a case of personal security. The provision on its terms applies where any amount of financial assistance is granted by a bank to a agriculturist and the agriculturist fails to pay the amount together with interest on the due date. It is not in dispute that the loan advanced to Imdad Husain, an agriculturist, was for the agricultural purpose, namely, the purchase of tractor and this constitutes financial assistance within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of this Act. It is not in dispute either before us that there is default in repayment of the amount due under the transaction. Section 11-A moreover applies, without prejudice to the provisions of Sections 10-B and 11 meaning thereby as also upheld in the case of Trijugi Narain Tewari (supra) that it remains open to the Bank to avail of this provision for recovery of the dues notwithstanding there being other methods provided for in Section 10-B or 11 of the Act.
(3.) IT was next argued for the petitioners that there was no opportunity given by the Bank to them before the issue of the Certificate of Recovery and hence the action taken in pursuance thereof is vitiated. In this context it is of interest to refer to the contents of paragraph 7 of the writ petition wherein it is admitted in express terms that as the entire loan together with interest was not repaid, the Bank was at liberty to proceed for recovery of the loan in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. This aspect of the matter also came to be considered in Trijugi Narain Tewari (supra) as appearing in paragraph 28, with which we are in respectful agreement :- " IT was urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the discretion conferred on the principal officer is absolute and is capable of being misused. In that connection, counsel emphasised for the need of being given an opportunity of hearing. We find no merit in this submission. The discretion must at last be reposed somewhere. The best, and in many cases, the only security is the wisdom and integrity of public servants. The Government cannot administer without committing powers in trust and confidence. If we consider and take into account the fact that the amount which is sought to be recovered is on the basis of entries in the books of account of the bank which offers financial assistance and evidence of the same is in the shape of a pass book given to every agriculturist, no confusion would arise on this account. The amounts paid from time to time and interest which accrues thereon are entered in the pass books. These pass books are always in possession of the agriculturists. If an agriculturist has any doubt about the correctness of the pass books and the entries made therein, he has only to contact the bank. Pass book repeats the entries entered in the ledger. That being so, no bank is likely to claim the amount arbitrarily and capriciously. Sometime it may happen that the amount claimed is more than what it is due, in that event such a person can always contract the bank and get his doubt removed. Seeing in this background, one would be left to believe that the point of not being given opportunity of hearing by the bank is devoid of substance. We know of no authority to pronounce a provision of the Act to be void if it is within general scope of constitutional powers of the Legislature only because in the opinion of the Court it was contrary to the principles of natural justice " The next argument of Sri Singh before us is that there was no citation issued to the petitioners. Section 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, categorises the methods which may be adopted for recovery as arrears of land revenue. Further elucidation appears in the following Sections 280 to 294. It is noticeable that except for Section 286, which deals with the powers to proceed against the interest of defaulter in immoyable property, other than the immovable concerning which the arrear is due, the rest of the clauses of Section 279 are mutually exclusive. In other words the interest of the defaulter in other immovable property can be proceeded against only after the processes mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) of Section 279 are exhausted. But for any other method of recovery, including attachment and sale of movables covered under clause (c) of Section 279, the law does not insist upon any other process to be exhausted. This clause has to be read along side with Section 282 of that Act whereunder the Collector may, whether the defaulter has been attested or not attach and sell his movable property.;