JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - Devnarain, the Petitioner is an agriculturist at village Kunwarpur Tulsipatti, Post Office, Bhatpura, tahsil Nawabganj district Bareilly. As there is a scheme of the State Government to provide loans to agriculturists. The Petitioner applied for a loan for Rs. 5000/- from the U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank, Nawabganj, district Bareilly for the purchase of a eight horse power pumping set and an engine. The loan was sanctioned and the pumping set was to be delivered by one Messrs Kapoor Traders, Nawabganj, Bareilly, a dealer assigned by the Bank to supply the pumping set and the engine. The payment by a bank draft was sent by the Bank to the dealer, aforesaid. 2. In the petition it is submitted that the dealer postponed the date of the delivery of the engine on one pretext and another and the pumping set and the engine was never supplied. 3. On March 4, 1975 an advertisement appeared in the paper 'Amar Ujala', Bareilly as a citation that for not paying the loan, the Petitioner's Bhumidhari Land would be subjected to be a public auction as a consequence of the recovery proceedings initialed, by the Collector. The Petitioner protested against the recovery proceedings on the plea that he had not even been supplied the pumping set and the engine for which purpose the loan was granted. 4. As the recovery proceedings continued and on the grievance of the Petitioner no attention was paid he filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed only on behalf of the U.P. Cooperative Land Development Bank, Bareilly and U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Lucknow, both arrayed as Respondents. The State of U.P. and the dealer Messrs Kapoor Traders have not filed any counter affidavit. The Petitioner has also filed a supplementary rejoinder affidavit, a copy of which had been-served upon learned Counsel for the Bank, aforesaid. 5. In the supplementary rejoinder affidavit a letter written by the Additional District Magistrate (Planning). Bareilly, to the Secretary, U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank, Lucknow is appended. The letter is dated March 10, 1975. In this communication the Additional District Magistrate (planning) has sent a report to state government, that upon an enquiry it has been revealed that the pump set and the engine had, in fact, not been supplied to the agriculturist, the Petitioner. The letter is dated March 10, 1975. In this communication the Additional District Magistrate (planning) has sent a report to state government, that upon an enquiry it has been revealed that the pump set and the engine had, in fact, not been supplied to the agriculturist, the Petitioner. The Additional District Magistrate (Planning) has recommended that the recovery proceedings may remain in abeyance under the circumstances. 6. As the recovery proceedings were not put in abeyance, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7. There is another aspect to the matter in regard to the loans granted to the agriculturists. Since there is a policy of the State Government to exempt the repayment of the loans to a class of agriculturists when the amount of the loan may not exceed Rs. 10,000/- this State policy cannot be ignored. This policy of' the State Government is on record in a State Government Order No. 2214/12C-1-1990/1 (5) dated May 30, 1990. 8. In the circumstances, firstly, that the pump set and the engine was never supplied to the agriculturist,: and secondly, the policy of the State Government as above not excluded, the recovery proceedings against the Petitioner subjecting his Bhumidhari land to a public auction on the basis of a mortgage created by the Bank for the recovery of the loan, is irregular and illegal. 9. The advertisement as a citation to initiate the recovery proceedings was issued in paper Amar Ujala dated 4-3-1975, Annexure 4 to the writ petition. The recovery proceedings in pursuance to this against the Petitioner, Devnarain, are quashed. 10. Any further enquiry which the State Government may be interested to do, on the pump set and the engine which was not delivered, in reference to the report of the Additional District Magistrate (Planning), the State Government will be free to complete the enquiry. 11. In the Circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with costs.