JUDGMENT By this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a beneficiary of the M. P. Krashak Rin Rahat Yojna, 1990 prays for issuance of a writ quashing the notice dated 15.11.1992, issued by the Collector of the district, calling upon him to deposit the total amount of loan failing which his movables and immovables were liable to be attached for which orders under Sec. 14 of the M. P. Bhumi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam have already been obtained. The petitioner claims that as back as January, 1990 he was entitled to set off Rs. 10,000/- in the matter of repayment of loan of which he is now being deprived of by the respondent. A bunch of such petitions involving similar question of law have already been decided by a division Bench of this Court in M. P. No. 409/92 (Rughnath . v. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and ors.) decided on 27.8.92. Although Shri Upadhyaya, learned Deputy Advocate General praying for time, opposed any relief being granted to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 Bank had filed a counter affidavit alongwith photostate-copies of the receipts and the notice issued and served on the elder brother of the petitioner, which bears his signature. Since large number of petitions invoving common question of law have been decided by a Division Bench of this Court, no useful purpose was going to be served by postponing the hearing of this petition for final hearing with the consent of the parties. A Division Bench of this Court in M. P. 409/92 decided on 27.8.92 has held as under: "As regards service of notice on individual petitioners by the lending societies, the petitioners have averred that they have not received any such notice, whereas the respondent have contended that notices were given to them. It is not for us to decide in each individual case as to whether notices were served or not. We would leave this to be decided by the recovery officer, in the interest of justice. We, therefore, direct that on the petitioners' depositing the balance amount which is left after deduction of Rs. It is not for us to decide in each individual case as to whether notices were served or not. We would leave this to be decided by the recovery officer, in the interest of justice. We, therefore, direct that on the petitioners' depositing the balance amount which is left after deduction of Rs. 10,000/- from the amount sought to be recovered by the recovery officer, within one month from today as a condition precedent, the recovery officer shall enquire into the service of notice by lending society or Bank of the concerned borrower and if it is found that no such notice was served before 15.6;91 leaving a period of atleast 15 days for deposit of the amount, the Recovery Officer shall refer the case to the lending society which will then process the case according to the scheme for deciding eligibility of the borrower for relief assuming that the balance amount was deposited by the borrower prior to 30.6.91. As regard the cost of the petition, those petitioners ,who do not deposit the balance amount as per direction given above within one month and those about whom the Recovery Officer finds that they had received notices of amount due before 15.6.91 from the concerned society or the Bank, shall pay Rs. 2,000/- each as costs to the lending society. The cost shall be, included in the amount of recovery and shall be recovered as the amount of loan due. In other cases there shall be no order as to costs. The petitions are disposed of with the above directions." ln view of the material available on record there is no scope for taking a different view or making a departure from the one expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in the above noted case. The petition, in the light of the aforesaid judgment deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated therein.