w^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRl SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appeliant (Petitioner) Respondent Writ Appeal No.307 of 2009 Jai Prakash Sahu S/o Jhunau Sahu, aged about 55 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Mulmula, Block Pamgarh, TahsiS - Pamgarh, Disfrict Janjgir ~ Champa (CG) VERSUS Bilaspur Jila SahRari Bhoomi Vikas Bank - Samiti, Janjgir - Champa Through : its Branch Manager, Branch Pamgarh, Tahsll - Pamgarh, Distnct Janjgir - Champa (CG) Writ Appeal under Section 2 ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Cmirt {Appeal to Division Benchl Act. 2008 Present : Shri Goutam Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellant. Judament (15th January, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Goutam Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant Jai Prakash Sahu has filed this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 07.09.2009 passed in WP(C) No.5899 of 2007. 3) The appellant / petitioner flled the writ petitfon for the following reliefs: <23A "7.1 The respondent - Bank or their agents or servant may be directed to return the vehicfe bearing NO.MP26/E 3610 to the petitioner. 7.2 The respondent - Bank restrained to recover the amountof Rs.1,51 J88/- from the petitioner. 7.3 The respondent may be directed to charge the Interest at simpSe rate of interest of chargeable yearly. 7.4 The Officer responsible to resorted such illegal means may be directed to be prosecuted in their personal capacity. 7.5 Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the factsand circumstances of the case." 4) The learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner did not find any ground for grant of the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the writ petitlon, and as such, the writ petltion was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.09.2009. 5) Shri Goutam Bhaduri, leamed counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the respondent / bank has illegally charged higher rate of interest of 17.5%, whereas, the petitioner was liable to pay interest @ 9% only, since the loan taken by the petitioner from the respondent / bank was an agricultural loan. 6) It is not in dispute that in the loan agreement, the agreed rate of interest is 17.5%. It is also admitted that the appellant committed default in making re-payment of the loan amount to the respondent / bank. By virtue of clause 10 and 11 of the loan agreement respondenVbank took possession of the appellant's '^.K^ ^ ff 2-f tractor ana me same was put lo auctlon Tor reailsailon of amount due. 7) Considering that the petitjoner had agreed to pay interest @ 17.5% in his ioan agreement, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby the learned single judge has decUned to interfere in the matter. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma ; 1