- (1.) THE admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner availed two agricultural loans one for the purchase of tractor in an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on or about 12-5-2007 and the other on a Kisan Credit Card Scheme for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18-5-2007 from the respondent Bank. The petitioner's agricultural land khasra Nos.227/620 measuring 0.24 hectare, 233/621 measuring 0.36 hectare, 234 measuring 0.01 hectare, 236/622 measuring 0.40 hectare, 258/623 measuring 0.28 hectare, 431/615 measuring 0.79 hectare, 432/616 measuring 0.25 hectare, 446/677 measuring 0.51 hectare, 684/618 measuring 0.48 hectare, 485/619 measuring 0.32 hectare total rakba 10 admeasuring 3.11 hectare situated at village Ishrota Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar were mortgaged with the respondent Bank as collateral for the security of the loan advanced and contracted rate of interest thereon. The petitioner defaulted in his obligation to repay the loan along with the contracted rate of interest thereon consequent to which the respondent bank initiated proceedings for recovery of outstanding amount Rs.7,59,795/- plus interest and recovery charges. For this purpose the respondent Bank applied before the Sub Divisional Officer Kathumar District Alwar under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (herein after the Rs.1974 Act') by issue of a certificate of recovery and sought recovery of the outstanding amounts plus future interest and other charges by way of sale of mortgaged property of petition.
(2.) IT appears that the SDO Kathumar under the provisions of 1974 Act after adopting the statutorily prescribed procedure issued notification for auction of agricultural land of petitioner mortgaged with the Bank. The auction was held on 27-2-2012, which as per the say of the counsel for the petitioner was not successfully concluded. Counsel for the petitioner has raised arguments with regard to wrong accounting by the Bank. The petitioner however has in para No.6 of the writ petition admitted that due to some family problems and circumstances, he could not adhere to his obligations to repay under the loan agreement. Mr.Ajay Gupta, the learned counsel for respondents has submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed material facts. He submits that the petitioner had obtained two agricultural loans one for the purchase of tractor Rs.3,50,000/- on 12-5-2007 and the other loan of Kisan Credit Scheme of Rs.1,50,000/- on 18-5-2007 from the respondent Bank, for recovery of which-consequent to default by the loanee, the respondent Bank has initiated the proceedings under the provisions of 1974 Act before the SDO Kathumar. He submits that the petitioner has disclosed only one of the loan of Rs.3,50,000/- for purchase of a tractor and not the loan under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Recovery proceeding initiated under the provisions of 1974 Act is wholly lawful and therefore the writ petition is misdirected. He submits that the petitioner should pursue his remedy before the SDO Kathumar or the concerned Bank. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 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. Further on the best case of the petitioner he agitates an accounting dispute with the Bank in this petition which cannot be addressed in the present proceedings. Further a loan transaction between the Bank and the petitioner is a matter of contract. There is no public law element agitated in this petition to interfere in a banking transaction (contract). The writ is 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 Kathumar, District Alwar, 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 the waiver of agricultural loans to marginal and small farmer if such schemes are presently operational.
(3.) IT is directed that if the representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of one week from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondent Bank shall address the same by a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks thereafter. With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay application stands dismissed. ;