1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER Dhagla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.C.WRIT PETITION NO.1743/06) Dated:- 16.11.2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mrs. Deepika Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Lohra, for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against demand notice dated 17.11.05 issued by the respondent Marwar Gramin Bank, Balunda, Pali( for short “the Bank” hereinafter) , whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount outstanding against the loan advanced for the purchase of tractor/equipments by the Bank. A loan of Rs.1,92,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent Bank in favour of the petitioner for purchase of a tractor. An agreement setting out the terms and conditions was executed between the parties. The repayment was to be made within a period of 9 years in 18 half yearly instalments of Rs. 10,667/- plus interest. According to the petitioner , he had already deposited a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- yet the respondent has raised a demand for Rs.3,13,561/- claiming to be an amount outstanding in the loan account of the petitioner. It was further 2 stated that on account of petitioner's committing default in repayment of loan, the tractor of the petitioner was attached and the same already stands auctioned for an amount of Rs.81,000/- and the sale proceeds stands adjusted against the amount outstanding. As a matter of fact, an amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- claimed to have been deposited by the petitioner includes the amount received on account of auction of the tractor. The grievance of the petitioner is that his agriculture land comprising khasra No.1/1 ad measuring 22 bighas and 10 biswas was attached by the respondent in the year 2001 and the same has been put to an auction for recovery of the amount outstanding. It is stated that the demand notice has been issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without supplying him the complete statement of account. Thus, the demand raised is illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the demand raised is violative of principles of `dam dupat' and the respondent cannot charge the interest more than double the principal amount. A reply to the writ petition has been filed wherein it has been stated by the respondent that the demand notice Annexure 1 issued was not responded by the petitioner, consequently, the respondent Bank proceeded against the petitioner for the recovery of the loan amount alongwith interest by invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit 3 Operations(Removal of Difficulties), Act, 1974( in short “the Act of 1974” hereinafter). In the said recovery proceedings, an attachment order was issued by the prescribed authority while exercising powers u/s 13 of the Act of 1974. According to the respondents, the proceedings are still pending before the said authority but, the petitioner has not assailed the proceedings initiated before the prescribed authority, therefore, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It is contended by the respondents that instead of responding to the notice, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court without any justifiable reason . It is further submitted that even after notice being issued by the prescribed authority , the petitioner has not chosen to put in appearance and has not made any endevour to file reply or explanation. In this view of the matter, adhering to the provisions of the Act of 1974 and the Rules made thereunder, the attachment of the agriculture land was made by the prescribed authority. It is submitted that the interest has been charged by the respondent Bank as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is contended that so called principle of `dam dupat' is not applicable in case of a financial institution like the respondent Bank. I have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. 4 It is not in dispute that the petitioner has made default in repayment of the loan . It is also not in dispute that for the recovery of the loan, the tractor of the petitioner already stands auctioned and the amount received stands appropriated against the amount outstanding. From the material on record, it is apparent that at the instance of the respondent Bank , the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1974 has been initiated against the petitioner, however, in the writ petition there is no disclosure of the proceedings pending before the prescribed authority under the provisions of the Act of 1974 for the recovery of the amount outstanding. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of concealing the material facts germane to the matter in dispute. Moreover, the isolated challenge of the petitioner to the demand notice without there being a challenge to the recovery proceedings is not understandable . If the demand raised is excessive and the interest has been charged beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement then, the petitioner could have made the submissions in this regard before the prescribed authority before whom the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1974 is pending. The complete account of the petitioner has already been placed on record by the respondent alongwith reply as Annexure R/2. If there is any error in calculation of interest payable or any other amount has been charged beyond the terms of the agreement then, the petitioner 5 can make his submissions in this regard before the prescribed authority before whom the recovery proceedings is still pending. Therefore, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case discussed above, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. The petitioner may appear before the prescribed authority before whom the proceedings under the Act of 1974 is pending and make his submissions regarding the validity of the demand raised. The prescribed authority shall consider the submissions of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed with the observations indicated above. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.