IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4771 of 2001 ARUN KUMAR SHARMA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 22.1.2009 Heard Mr. Madhav Roy, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P.K.Verma, counsel for the respondent Bank as also the counsel for the State. In this writ application the prayer made by the petitioners is to the following effect: “That this petition is being filed before this Hon’ble Court by the petitioners in representative capacity representing the interest of farmers of village Amawdia and Singali under Bagaha P.S. of West Champaran for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari restraining the Government authorities from taking coercive measures for realization of the amount of loan from the poor farmers by willfully and intentionally neglecting the Government order and by taxably delaying action on the request of the poor farmers for waiving amount of loan upto Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only granted to the farmers, who suffered from the natural calamities resulting in the 2 heavy loss of agricultural produce through crops grown with the said of loan was under the cover of insurance. The petitioners further crave indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to compensate the farmers for the loss and sufferings sustained by them.” Mr. Madhav Roy in support of the aforementioned prayer has urged that when the amount of 30% was deducted at source at the time of reimbursement of loan and there was a provision for providing insurance cover for such loan, the respondent Bank could not have subjected the poor farmers by taking coercive measure for realization of the loan. He further submits that in that view of the matter the Government should be compelled to divulge its policy towards the farmers. Mr. Verma, on the other hand, appearing for the Bank, placing reliance on the counter affidavit has brought to the notice of this Court the order of this Court dated 11.9.1997 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 1384/1997 and yet another order dated 3 5.2.1998 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 966/1997. In the aforesaid two orders this Court had precisely gone into this very question with regard to agricultural loan and it was held that it was open for the Bank to realize its dues either by filing a properly constituted suit or by filing certificate proceeding. This Court in fact did not choose to interfere with the steps for realization of the loan. Mr.Roy agrees to the settled position in law that when a loan is advanced by one party and is taken by the other party in the stipulated terms and conditions its realization would squarely depend on the terms and conditions. There being no dispute that the farmers had taken loan from the Bank, any policy of the Government whether of the State or Central for its waiver had to be firm and specific with an express provision for compensating the Bank by way of reimbursement/adjustment of the amount of the loan. The Bank is not in a position to generate its own revenue and therefore, leave the loanees without realizing the amount on more promise and/or assurance of 4 the government. As to whether there was an insurance cover and whether such insurance cover envisaged certain concession for loanees, is essentially a question of fact and therefore, if all such details with regard to the individual farmer are disclosed by the petitioner, that only can be looked into by the authority which had sanctioned and disbursed the loan. The remedy by a writ petition for this purpose will be wholly inadequate as it would not only amount to making a roving enquiry but also entering in the domain of executing policies of the government. That being so, this Court finds it impossible to grant any relief to the petitioners in this writ application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/