mmmmafiaw) 11.12.2001 Shri P.P.5ahu, learned cou Tsel for The peTiTioners. Shri ‘___P.$.Koshy, Iear-ned WW1W®W counsel for The respondent No.4 / Manager, Dena Bank. 5hri Rajeev Shrivasfavo, bamed Panel Lawyer for fhe respondenf / Sfa‘re. Heard. The pe‘rifioner No.1 Took pe‘rifioner No.2 'rook loan of R. No.3 Took loan of Rs.95,000/- in loan of Rs.80,000/—. A1- ‘rhe relev (Shodhya Rashiyon ki Vasuli) Adl fhe said Ac‘r is as regards recoi revenue. SecTion 3(8) includes f ‘under i a socially desirable scheme". IT is submiTTed on behalf c f The respondenTs ThaT The said scheme I2001—50 000. loan of Rs.95,000/— in The year 1997, r1 ;.70,000/- in The year 1998, peTiTioner The year 1996 and peTiTioner No.4 Took (anT Time, The Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan uiniyam 1987 was in vogue. SecTion 3 of Very of cerTain dues as arrears of land x n GRPRJ—FS/3 l l-1 availed by The wriT peTiTioners would clearly come wiThin The purview of Aw.\ i‘jurisdicfion’ fo issue such ‘no‘fices for recovery under fhe Ac‘r as shied fhaf by an amendmen‘r‘ efiiec‘red in 2000 vide no‘rifica'rion dated 13* Sepfember, 2000,11'he sdd PMRY has been included wifhin If is mentioned in clause IV of The purview of The aforesaid Act 1he nofifica'i'ion as foliows1- PRIME MINI5TER ROJ'GAR VOJNA (PMRY) [new if A: ‘ ; ‘ R.R&74nesmuch‘as fhe said Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna did nof come wifhin The purview of fhe aforesaid Adhiniyam 1987. If may be ‘j‘i XLHC—22 ’ O 3m m ,‘ mama; 1H 200! mm mm mmmw ’ ‘ wwwiffgétm €EW 311W ~ 2,. I socioHy desirable scheme;.; ObviOLsly, inwter'ms of *he aforesaid _ [f provision a no1'ice was iéSued by fhe Tahsildar 1'0 fhe wri'r pe‘rifioners for recéver-y of fhe loqns under Pr Minisfer Rojgar Yojna under‘ v loqns me RevenueVReeo‘'veny ‘Cerfificafe (RR; .).e Obviously, such nofices were ’ issUed on failure of repaymenf o The Ioan in fime. The main contention . i §; contention made before ‘i‘his CourT is The? a? fhe relevnni iime when nofices were s issued, the 'Tahs‘idar‘ concerned had no such WmQaigaw) marl § mm wwm WW mmwafa‘d §ia¥Wa1é¥T Shri P.P’$ahu, su 3mi1's fha‘l' cleariy This scheme was no‘l' within The purview of fhe aforesaid Act before 1'he amendmen’r was effec‘red m 2000 If has been urged by Shri P 5 Koshy, as well as Shri Rajeev Shrivasfava fhaf‘fhough fhis scheme has been clearly/k specifie§ ‘in The ame sfipulafed as socially des Affer hearing fhe submissions of the parfies, I am of fhe The year 2000 as specu Ically men‘honed fhe scheme under which prior 'i'o fhe coming Info orce of fhe amendmenf cannof be said fo have been validly issued vFacfs remaining 1'he same, I am of 1’he view fhat if will be fa fhaf fresh no‘rices are issued by fhe TahSIIdar and The pefifi ners are given opporfunify fo say whaf fhey Wish f0 say and ac Thereaffer in ferms of fhe prowswns of The aforesaid Acf for Th purpose ofrecovery of loans under R R C Wifh The above dnsposed of MW f.3'— enf such programme was ofherwise n i V View fhaf Since amendm n? of 'i'he aforesaid Adhiniyamwinofifiedf WWW CerTified copy as p r rules f i ( CI£EF JUSTICE SS sw- WAsHisHAK {a :iiRPRJw—FSB I i i /Z()0 i >~50,0()0i recTion and observaTion This peTiTion( a: M i m i