- (1.) THE case of the petitioner is that he availed a loan of Rs.4,33,000/- from the Union Bank of India, Gunsara Branch (Bharatpur) for the purchase of a tractor on or about 28-6-2005 and was unable to discharge his obligation of repayment of loan along with the interest at the contracted rate. It appears that the respondent Bank issued a final notice on 7-3-2012 informing the petitioner that as on 30th September, 2011 an amount of Rs.6,34,626/- was due against the petitioner. It was stated in the notice that in terms of scheme then in force with the bank for the benefit of defaulting borrowers of agricultural loans the petitioner was required to pay Rs.3,35,840/- out of Rs.6,34,626/- till 31-3-2012, consequent to which the petitioner was being given a rebate of Rs.2,98,786/-. The petitioner was also informed that in the event he failed to make payment as offered till 31-3-2012, the petitioner would be disentitled to any concession under the offer and he would be liable to pay the entire amount Rs.6,34,626/- along with further interest.
(2.) INSTEAD of availing the offer made by the respondent Bank, the petitioner dithering on the offer appears to have demanded statement of his account from the Bank, as also details of certain agricultural loan exemption and relief scheme, 2008 issued by the Central Government for providing benefit to small scale farmers. The petitioner however chose not pay the concessional amount as required by him till 31-3-2012 in terms of the notice dated 7-3-2012. That was a conscious choice the petitioner made. The petitioner has now oddly prayed in this petition that the notice of concession dated 7-3-2012 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside, and contrarily required that the respondent Bank be directed to extend the time of the notice dated 7-3-2012. Further prayer made is recovery of amounts outstanding to the Bank be restrained. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record of the writ petition. The notice dated 7-3-2012 is in the nature of concession offered by the respondent Bank to the petitioner under the then operative relief scheme. It is trite that a concession is to be taken as given and may be accepted or not by the beneficiary at his own peril. The petitioner has not accepted the offer and did not pay the amount till 31-3-2012. The consequence are set to follow as indicated in the letter/ notice of 7-3-2012. Concessions are in the nature of offers unilaterally made. Law confers no indefeasible right to concessions. Absent legal or contractual rights (remissions made under the contract Act) this court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to alter the nature or character of a concession. And no such legal or contractual right to a concession or to have it modified to the petitioner's taste have been agitated in this petition. Arguments of equity also can be of no succour as equities cannot be invoked to alter offers made or contracts concluded. Further 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 loans 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 with regard to amounts now due after the petitioner has chosen to forego a conditional concession made.
(3.) 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 illegality in the actions of the respondent Bank. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition and stay application are dismissed accordingly.;