Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has sought the following relief: a) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice 2.3.2010 Annexure -1 and the notice dated 17.1.2011 Annexure -3 passed by the Respondents be quashed and set aside. b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, the Respondent No. 1 be directed to exempt the Petitioner from recovering the amount of illegal interest of Rs. 8,63,000/ - against the loan of Rs. 5,76,000/ - which has been calculated @ 13.5% per annum with compounded interest. c) That the compound interest of 13.5% per annum which is being charged by the bank from the Petitioner be converted into simple interest of 6% per annum. d) The cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the Petitioner.
(2.) HAVING considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in the year 2006 -07, the Petitioner took loan of Rs. 5,03,000/ - and Rs. 73,000/ - from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Anta, District Baran for purchasing a tractor and for digging a tube -well. Since the Petitioner failed to repay the loan amount, notice dated 2.3.2010 was issued to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Respondent Bank filed an application before the SDO, Anta, District Baran, who in -turn, issued the notice dated 17.1.2011 under Section 4 of Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 asking the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,39,000/ -, failing which Petitioner's property had been directed to be attached and auctioned by way of sale. It is further noticed that albeit the matter is still sub -judice before the Sub Divisional Officer, Anta, but by way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court imploring the Court to quash and set -aside the notices dated 2.3.2010 and 17.1.2011.
(3.) AT the very outset, it is relevant to record that in plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the well settled principle of law that ordinarily relief under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is not available, if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.;