IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8492 of 2008 RAM AVTAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh For the Bank : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha For the State : J.C. to S.C.20. 3 06/08/2008 Petitioner and one another had jointly taken an agricultural loan for purchase of a tractor from the State Bank of India, Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad in the year 1991. They were defaulted . Intermittently some payments are made. Ultimately in 1997 Bank was forced to file the present certificate proceeding being Certificate Case no. 06 of 1997-98 before the District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad for realisation of its dues. It may be mentioned that the original amount disbursed was Rs. 1,25,000/- . The Certificate proceedings were initiated for Rs. 2.01,556=50 paise. Petitioner states that he had been making deposit totalling to Rs. 1,08,741/- upto 16th June,2000 being totally unaware of the certificate proceedings. It is further submitted that the other joint debtor died in the meantime. Now, it is alleged that all of a sudden body warrant has been executed against the petitioner and he has been taken into custody. He challenges the entire certificate proceedings. Respondent-Bank has appeared and filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the certificate proceedings were initiated in the year 1997 and after ten years it is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the same. It is submitted that this Court should not grant any relief to the petitioner because of laches. Counter affidavit having been filed, parties have been 2 heard and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the loan amount was Rs. 1,25,000/- and petitioner having paid about Rs. 1.08 lakh it is not understandable as to how till a balance of over Rs. 2 lakh is left. He submits that the only plausible explanation is that the Bank is charging interest on compounding basis, which is not permissible as the loan was an agricultural loan in view of the judgments of this Court in the case of Jainath Prasad –v- State of Bihar & ors. since reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 227 and Farmudur & anr-v- State of Bihar & ors. since reported in 2008 (3) PLJR 417. He submits that the Bank is authorized to charge only simple interest and if that is done, then the certificate amount would substantially reduce. Petitioner submits that he had no opportunity to file a petition denying the liability, which is contested by the State Bank of India. Be that as it may, I direct that the Bank should prepare a proper account in accordance with the judgments aforesaid and re-submit the same to the certificate court. A copy of the same shall be furnished to the petitioner as well. If the amount, as shown in the certificate stands reduced, the certificate would be accordingly amended. This account should be furnished by the Bank within a period of one month from today and the petitioner would himself receive it from the Bank concerned without notice in this regard. Petitioner would then file any objection as to the account to the Branch concerned in writing, which would be then dealt with within the next fifteen days. On account finally being settled, the 3 Certificate Court would be informed. Petitioner would then file an affidavit before the Certificate Court undertaking to liquidate the entire amount shown outstanding on the date certificate was signed to be payable by the petitioner within one year. Petitioner would liquidate the outstanding amount in twelve equal monthly instalments. On payment of the aforesaid amount in the manner as aforesaid, the certificate would stand discharged but if there is any default in payment thereof or by the end of the year i.e by September, 2009. If the accounts are not fully cleared, the Bank and the Certificate Court then will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner as if no order is passed by this Court in this matter. The petitioner is in custody as per averments made in the supplementary affidavit filed today. It is this fact of being arrested that he persuaded this Court to entertain this writ petition which otherwise ought to have been dismissed on the ground of laches. At this stage I may mention here that this Court on several occasions has held that no person can be detained in civil prison for merely failure to pay the civil debt In this connection reference may be made to 2005(3) PLJR 687( Dasrath Sharma –v- State of Bihar & ors.) and 2007 (1) PLJR 797 (Md. Abu Hasnain –v- State of Bihar & ors.). In view of the judgments as referred to hereinabove , let petitioner be released from civil prison forthwith and thereafter within one week from today i.e. 13th August, 2008 he will deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the Bank concerned, failing which on 14th August, 2008 he shall surrender before the Certificate Court, who shall take him into 4 custody and remand him in civil prison, for non compliance of order of this Court. If the petitioner fails to co-operate in the manner as aforesaid then the Bank and the Certificate Court would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. With the above observation and direction this writ petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Certificate Officer, Aurangabad, at the cost of the petitioner. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)