IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10494 of 2005 1. Gayasuddin 2. Md. Razi Ahmad, Both sons of Late Garibullah, Village Saunt, P.O. Chhaurahi, via P.S. Khodawandpur, District Begusarai. …………Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Begusarai. 3. The District Certificate Officer, Begusarai. 4. The State Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, Agriculture Development Bank, Manjhaul, Begusarai. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Kumar, Advocate. For respondent nos.1 to 3 : Mrs. Vinita Singh, A.C. to A.A. G. I For respondent no.4 : M/s. Suraj Samdarshi & Rajan Prakash, Advocates. ----------- 04/ 16.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 28.06.2005/06.07.2005 by which the Collector, Begusarai dismissed petitioner’s appeal bearing Misc. Case No.22 of 1999 and also challenging order dated 27.07.1999 passed by the District Certificate Officer, Begusarai for recovery of Rs.1,52,949.00 in Certificate Case No.12 of 1997-98 and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had no jurisdiction to pass certificate of such a huge amount when the requisition for certificate proceeding was only Rs.34,016.00. He also claims that the principles of natural justice have been violated by the authorities as they had deprived the - 2 - petitioners of the statements of accounts, including calculation of notional interest etc. especially when the loan taken was for agricultural purpose. He also avers that the charge of compound interest at the rate of 12.5 percent from the agriculturist on half yearly basis is contrary to law laid down by the courts. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the authorities concerned considered the matter in detail and had come to the conclusion that for term loan regarding agriculture rate of interest has been fixed and the bank had charged interest on the same rate which cannot be said to be unjustified. It has also been held that the State Government had given exemption on agriculture loan within a specified limit and the loan in question does not come within that limit and hence the claim of the petitioner was not justified. It was also held that the amount claimed included the principal amount as well as the notional interest which has been specifically provided in law and hence the inclusion of interest in the amount claimed cannot be legally held to be unjustified and improper. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)