NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6930/07) 1 NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6930/07) Dated:- 10.7.09. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. S.P.Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, for the respondent no.4. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of recovery proceedings initiated against him by the prescribed authority under the provisions of Section 13 of Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation ( Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 ( in short “the Act of 1974” hereinafter) for recovery of the sum due to the Punjab National Bank ( hereinafter referred to as “the respondent Bank”) on account of financial assistance availed by him. 2. The petitioner was granted agriculture loan of Rs.1,75,000/- by the respondent Bank on 27.7.99. The petitioner made default in repayment of the loan therefore, the respondent Bank preferred an application u/13 of Act of 1974 before the Deputy District Collector, Raisinghnagar. The petitioner was served with a notice to deposit the amount due , however, neither reply to the notice was filed by the petitioner nor the amount was deposited by him , in this view of the matter, a warrant to attach the immovable property of the NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6930/07) 2 petitioner was ordered to be issued by the prescribed authority. However, before the warrant of attachment could be executed , the proceedings were transferred from the court of Deputy District Collector to the Tehsildar(Revenue), Raisinghnagar. In the meantime, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- . In this view of the matter, execution of the warrant was deferred. The petitioner instead of appearing before the prescribed authority and make his submissions, has straight away assailed validity of the proceedings before this court on the ground that the prescribed authority could not have initiated the proceedings for attachment of the petitioner immovable property without determining the loan amount. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prescribed authority has acted without jurisdiction in straight away issuing warrant for attachment of petitioner's immovable property without determining the amount due after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank submitted that in response to the notice issued by the prescribed authority, the petitioner did not care to put in appearance before the said authority and has failed to deposit NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6930/07) 3 the amount due therefore, the prescribed authority was well within its jurisdiction to issue the warrant for attachment of the immovable property of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner disputes the amount due then nothing prevented him to make his submission in this regard before the prescribed authority in response to the notice issued.The learned counsel submitted that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the application of the respondent Bank by the prescribed authority under the Act of 1974 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, in pursuance of the notice , the petitioner has not appeared before the prescribed authority till this date and instead of making his submissions before the said authority, he has directly approached this court assailing the validity of the proceedings. If according to the petitioner the amount claimed by the respondent Bank by way of application before the prescribed authority is excessive then, nothing prevented him to make his submissions before the said authority for the determination of the amount due. It is still open for the NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6930/07) 4 petitioner to appear before the said authority and make his submission for determination of the loan amount. There is no reason to presume that if any submissions are made in this regard by the petitioner, the same shall not be considered by the prescribed authority in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the petitioner shall appear before the prescribed authority on 17th August,09 and shall file reply to the notice, if so advised. If any reply is filed by the petitioner, disputing the loan amount , the prescribed authority shall determine the amount due after hearing both the parties, and shall proceed in the matter thereafter for recovery of the amount determined, in accordance with law. However, if the petitioner fails to appear before the authority or fails to file reply in the matter on or before the aforesaid date , the prescribed authority shall be at liberty to proceed straight away for recovery of the amount due in accordance with law. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. Aditya/-