- (1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition while praying for following reliefs: "(a) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued declaring Sections 13 and 14 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (b) That it is submitted that the provisions of the enactments of Sections 12, 13, 14, 27 to 30 are inseparable from the rest of the act because if these provisions are taken away, the rest of the Act becomes otiose. Hence, these provisions being inseparable the entire Act is liable to be declared unconstitutional. (c) That an appropriate writ, direction or order may be issued to the respondents restraining them to sell the mortgaged property of the petitioner unless and until the dues of the petitioner are recalculated on the basis of 6% simple interest as applicable for mortgaged suits. (d) That the respondent Bank may be directed to recalculate the dues of the petitioner on the basis of 6% simple interest as applicable to the mortgaged suits and outstanding amount thus recalculated may be directed to be paid to the Bank in reasonable time and the notice vide Annex.8 may be quashed. (e) That any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice. (f) That the cost of the litigation may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner took loan of Rs.1,65,000/- from the respondent-Bank on 12.03.1996 for purchasing a tractor. When the petitioner failed to repay the loan as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the respondent-Bank moved an application on 21.08.2000 for recovery of loan amount before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar (for short 'the SDO' hereinafter) under section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act of 1974' hereinafter). The SDO had issued notice of the application moved by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner, however, despite due service, the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against her. The SDO had directed to issue attach warrant and in pursuance thereof, the tractor in question was attached and put to auction. Ultimately, the tractor was auctioned at the price of Rs.70,000/-. However, when the whole due amount was not recovered from the said auction of the tractor, another notice dated 16.07.2001 was issued to the petitioner, asking her to deposit an amount of Rs.1,60,713/- by 31.07.2001. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, while praying for aforesaid reliefs.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 give unfettered right to the Bank and the prescribed authority to acquire the land and to attach the same without determination of the debt in accordance with due process of law. It has also been argued that there is no provision for determination of the debt and it does not even provide proper opportunity to confront the demand raised by the loanee bank. It has been contended that any provision, which deprives agriculturists of their land or immovable property without established procedure of giving due hearing for determination of debt, is simply draconian and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 virtually presume that the certificate of the Bank and its complaint to be true and correct account and in the event of non-payment of the amount as determined by the Bank, the property of the agriculturists is attached without any enquiry into the fact whether the amount of parties have been properly debited and credited and whether the interest has been charged at reasonable rates in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the prescribed authority under sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 are the persons, who have no experience in the field of law and therefore, they cannot be the proper authorities for determining the demand raised by the loanee bank.;