- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank against the petitioner following the default made by the petitioner in repayment of loan advanced to the petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent Bank never informed the petitioner about the outstanding amount and wrongly computed the interest and the respondent Bank has wrongly resorted to recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (herein after the Rs.1974 Act') before the Sub Divisional Officer Ajmer seeking recovery of Rs.2,96,931/- plus interest @ 17.5% effective 1-4-2002. It is submitted that the demand made by the Bank before the Sub Divisional Officer Ajmer was wholly arbitrary as the Bank failed to make adjustment towards the amount deposited by the petitioner against the loan advanced for purchase of tractor and trolly which were hypothecated and petitioner's land khasra No.1179, 4344, 4354, 1740, 1741, 4276, 4279, 4280, 4482 and 4483 measuring 50 bighas 13 biswas were mortgaged. The Sub Divisional Officer on the request by the Bank issued notice to petitioner for his appearance before the Sub Divisional Officer. The petitioner appeared before the SDO and expressed his desire to compromise the matter with the Bank, where upon the SDO allowed the petitioner two months time to deposit the outstanding amount with the Bank. According to the petitioner owing to failure of agricultural operations he could not pay the amount due to Bank. Therefore the petitioner submitted that he was not in a position to deposit the amount lump sum as due and instalments be fixed. It has been alleged that the proceedings initiated before the SDO for recovery of amount due were totally without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 13 of the 1974 Act. It is submitted that recovery proceedings could not have been initiated without first determining the liability of the defaulter and only after proper determination of liability amount could be recovered from sale of hypothecated goods and/ or mortgaged property. It is submitted that in such circumstances the proceedings initiated before the SDO Ajmer for recovery of amount due from sale of the petitioner's mortgaged property are wholly illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. Reply to writ petition has been filed by the Bank wherein it has been stated that the petitioner himself had admitted before the SDO of his liability with reference to the claim of the Bank and sought time by way of application to deposit the due amount to the Bank, as would be evident from the order-sheet of the SDO Ajmer dated 11-7-2002. It is submitted that inspite of admission of the petitioner with regard to his failing to repay the amount due to the Bank he did not participate in the proceedings before the SDO Ajmer. It has been submitted that when the petitioner admits availing of loan and due of outstanding amount, the claim raised by the Bank before the SDO Ajmer cannot be said to be illegal and the respondent Bank is entitled to recover the outstanding amount by way of sale inter alia of the mortgaged property. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record of the writ petition. A bare look at the writ petition indicates that the loan agreement has not been filed with the writ petition, neither is there any averment with regard to rate of interest chargeable by respondent bank on loan advanced to petitioner. The petitioner has not stated as to how much amount has been deposited by him against the loans availed from the Bank and the writ petition is lacking material particulars to enable an address by this court to the merits of the matter. Even otherwise loans by a bank to its borrower are a matter of contract and the counsel for the petitioner apart from admitting the petitioner's default in discharging his obligations to the Bank has not been able to point out any infraction of the statutorily prescribed recovery process adopted by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 and Rules, 1976 made thereunder. On the contrary counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount due albeit by way of instalments.
(3.) IN the facts of the case, I find that there is no material before this court to adjudicate the present writ petition. Foundational facts necessary to enable scrutiny of the nature and content of the rights of the petitioner have not been detailed in the petition. The writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. However even while not interfering in the action of respondent Bank and the consequent recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the Bank before the Sub Divisional Officer Ajmer, I would allow the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank and move a detailed representation ventilating his grievance against the recovery proceedings and seeking the Bank's indulgence in allowing the petitioner any benefit as per its own and the RBI's guidelines with reference to scheme of waiver of agricultural loans to marginal and small farmer if such schemes are presently operational. It is directed that if the representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days from today along with a certified copy of this order, the respondent Bank shall address the same by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks thereafter. ;