IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1207 of 2011 Date of Decision : January 21, 2011. Balishter Singh Mann .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.I.S.Saggu, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the Recovery Notice dated Nil (Annexure P-10), whereby he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.14,06,372/- within 15 days, failing which respondent No.4-Bank would proceed to auction the petitioner's agricultural land mortgaged with it. The facts on record would reveal that the petitioner had taken a dairy farming loan as well as other loans for the ancillary activities from respondent No.4-Cooperative Bank. The petitioner having failed to repay the same, that the impugned recovery notice has been served upon him. Though the petitioner does not seriously dispute his liability, his grievance is that the impugned debt is liable to be waived off in terms of the Government of India Scheme known as the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (for short `the 2008 Scheme'), a C.W.P.No .1207 of 2011 2 copy whereof is placed on record as Annexure P-6. It is alleged that the petitioner is a “small farmer” within the meaning of the 2008 Scheme and since the loan in question was taken by him for agricultural purpose, he is fully eligible for waiving off the loan liabilities under the said policy/Scheme. The petitioner also asserts his entitlement for the subsidies in terms of the State Government Policy (Annexure P-1) and it is alleged that despite approaching the authorities time and again, the same has not been granted to him. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have represented the respondent-bank on 28.6.2010 (Annexure P-9) but it is alleged that without considering his claim, the impugned recovery notice has been issued. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the contents of the 2008 Scheme as well as the averments made in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage with a direction to respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner regarding waiving off his loan under the 2008 Scheme and pass an appropriate order as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Till then, respondent No.4-bank may proceed with the auction but the sale shall not be confirmed. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. January 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE