JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - The petitioner, who are agriculturists, took a loan of Rs. 50,000/- on 26th of April, 1976. At the time of taking of the loan an agreement was executed between the petitioners and the respondent Bank. The loan was to be repaid within a period of five year i.e. by April, 1981. There was default in payment of instalments of the loan as it contemplated under the agreement and thus, the State Bank of India initiated the proceedings for the realisation of the dues alongwith interest under Section 11(a) of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. It was at this stage that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the recovery proceedings under the aforesaid section. 2. In the writ petition it has been alleged that the proceedings under Section 11(a) of the Act are illegal as it gives arbitrary, unguided and uncanalised powers to the executive authorities and the procedure provided under section 11(A) is very onerous. It has also been stated that Section 11(A) of the Act is ultra vires and is hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the constitution of India. 3. The legislature has provided two remedies under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, i.e. one under section 11 and another under section 11(a). Section 11(a) Provides for realisation of the dues of the Bank in case there was default in the payment of the loan. Two remedies are separate and the legislature was competent enough to provide for two remedies i.e. (1) under section 11 and (2) under section 11 (a) of the Act. The mere fact that the remedy under section 11(a) is more onerous will not make it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of "Deep Chandra v. The State of U.P. & Others." 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the petitioners having admittedly taken loan were bound to repay it as contemplated under the agreement which has been executed by them and the respondent Bank. The petitioners are, thus not entitled to any relief in this writ petition from this court in exercise of our jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are, thus not entitled to any relief in this writ petition from this court in exercise of our jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of India. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The stay order granted by this court on 18-9-1980 is discharged. However, looking to the circumstances of this case it is directed that the parties shall bear their own costs.