{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3074 OF 2009 Suresh Murlidhar Sikchi PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.P.M.Sonpethkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr.S.M.Godsay, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. and A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 17th July 2009 PER COURT: 1. Heard. 2. Perused the petition. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking waiver of loan granted by the bank contending that finance of Rs.5,00,000/- was obtained by him for agricultural purposes, inspite of the fact that the bank in reply to his notice had intimated him that the loan had not been granted to him for agricultural purpose, and that it was granted for business purpose. In other words, petitioner {2} was informed by the bank well in advance that the loan granted was not a agricultural loan. 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, after taking instructions from the petitioner, went on to reiterate that the loan was obtained only for agricultural purposes and not for business purpose. 5. This insistence on the part of the advocate for the petitioner compelled us to issue notice to the bank calling upon the bank to depute one officer along with original loan documents so as to find out where the truth lies. 6. Pursuant to our notice, the original loan documents were produced before us including application for loan duly signed by the petitioner, wherein purpose of loan is mentioned as “for expansion of business (M/s Shree Traders)”. The petitioner himself is present in the Court. This loan application was shown to him. He admits to have signed and obtained loan for the purpose of business. 7. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the petition is filed on false averments to mislead this Court, knowing full well that the the amount of loan was borrowed for business purpose and not for agricultural purpose. The statement made in the petition is utterly false. In this view of the matter, the petition is {3} liable to be dismissed for having made a false statement to mislead this Court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is also liable to be prosecuted for perjury. However, considering the age of the petitioner and that he is seeking to withdraw this petition, we do not propose to go to that extent. 8. In the result, petition is dismissed as withdrawn with cost quantified in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). The cost shall be payable to the bank within a period of 4 weeks from today, failing which it would be open for the bank to debit the same in the loan account of the petitioner and recover it along with his loan liability. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [V.C.DAGA, J.] drp/wp3074-09