1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1543 OF 2011 (Prashant Purushottamrao Ingle .v. The State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri D.V. Dhondarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri H.D. Dangre, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri P.D. Meghe, Advocate for the respondent No.4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 04TH AUGUST, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notices issued by the respondent No.4-Bank asking the petitioner to deposit the outstanding loan amount of Rs.2,65,646/-. The petitioner seeks a further declaration that the respondent No.4 has no power and authority to demand or recover the amount which is sought to be recovered in terms of the impugned notice dated 23.07.2010. It is necessary to note that the respondent No.4-Bank had advanced a loan of Rs.2,91,000/- to the petitioner for purchase of a tractor in the year 1995. The petitioner made some repayment towards the loan till the year 2004 and thereafter stopped making the repayment. In view of the Prime Minister's Relief Package Scheme, it appears that the respondent No.4 waived certain interest which was payable by the petitioner on the loan amount. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had not waived the interest as per the Prime Minister's Relief Package Scheme and had also not rescheduled the overdue loan as per the provisions of the scheme. The respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit-in-reply and has stated that the petitioner is a member of the respondent No.4-Society which is registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the dispute raised by the petitioner 2 could be as well raised under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It is denied by the respondent No.4 that the petitioner was not given any benefit of the various government schemes including the Prime Minister's Relief Package Scheme. It is further stated in the reply that in fact the interest was waived to the extent of Rs.1,31,366/-despite the fact that huge amount was outstanding against the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent No.4 that when the petitioner's father had stopped the repayment in the year 2004, the outstanding amount was Rs.2,07,846/- and after giving the relief of Rs.1,31,366/- to the petitioner, the amount which is due and payable by the petitioner on 31.03.2011 is Rs.4,51,000/- and odd. It is also stated in para 5 of the reply that the petitioner can take the benefit of the said scheme to certain extent if he repays the loan amount till 31.03.2012. The other statements of facts made in the petition are also disputed. We find that several disputed questions of facts arise for determination in this writ petition. It would not be possible for us to make the calculation and consider whether the respondent No.4 is really entitled to claim the amount of Rs.4,51,000/- and odd from the petitioner. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy for the redressal of his grievance. The disputed facts need to be proved by tendering of evidence. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.