JUDGMENT 1. - The writ petitioner has impugned a proceeding in Case No. 5/95 before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, Sikar, wherein by an order dated 17.11.94 without determining the exact amount due from the petitioner, compliance of warrant of attachment was directed to be made and ultimately, by order dated 26.12.94, a direction was issued for holding the auction on 4.9.95. The proclamation was issued on 26.7.95. 2. The petitioner contends that he is an agriculturist and he was granted as many as four loans by the Punjab National bank through its Palsana Branch. The first loan was for a tractor, for Rs. 1,06.000/- payable in 14 half yearly instalments of Rs. 7,786/- each along with interest @ 121/2% per annum, which was to commence with effect from July, 1990. The agreement for the term loan is dated 20.9.1989. Second loan was for Trolly, for Rs. 12,600/-, which was payable in 10 half yearly instalments of Rs. 1,260/- each and interest @ 12% per annum was agreed and this loan was to be disbursed directly to the dealer as per the agreement dated 23.8.90. The third loan was for sprinkler for Rs. 17,400/- which was payable in 11 annual instalments of Rs. 1,582/- along with interest @ 10% per annum with half yearly rests commencing from July, 1990. It was to he disbursed directly to the supplier as per agreement dated 9th October, 1989. The fourth loan was for agricultural production for Rs. 7,500/- payable in the month of February, 1991 with interest @ 10% per annum with half yearly rests as per agreement dated 26th July, 1990. It is unnecessary to note the averments made by the writ petitioner that he was not made aware of the terms of the agreement and that he did not understand the terms of the loan or that he did not have a copy of the documents regarding the loan agreement. It is an undisputed fact that the writ petitioner made defaults in repayment of the loan even though he made deposits of certain amounts as per his own averments. 3. Respondent No. 2, Punjab National Bank, Palsana, resorted to a proceeding under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 4. It is an undisputed fact that the writ petitioner made defaults in repayment of the loan even though he made deposits of certain amounts as per his own averments. 3. Respondent No. 2, Punjab National Bank, Palsana, resorted to a proceeding under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 4. It is a candid statement of the writ petitioner, as delineated in para 6 of the writ application, that he made certain deposits with the respondent- Bank which were duly not accounted for in the claim lodged by the Bank and it is also an admitted position that after the institution of the proceedings by the Bank, the writ petitioner made deposits of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- which instead of being adjusted against the writ petitioner's loan account, was credited in his Savings Bank Account No. 4052. It is the petitioner's contention that as and when he made certain deposits in adjustment of the amounts of the entire recovery proceedings on 20.9.89 - a sum of Rs. 13,800/- and Rs. 9,050/- they were credited against his new Savings Bank Account and deposits of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- on 10.5.90 were credited against his Savings Account No. 179/89 and Account No. 191/89. Similarly, the deposits made on 6.6.92 and 8.6.92 of Rs. 10,000/- each were shown as deposited in Account No. 179/89 and the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on 6.5.93 was shown in Account No. 179/89. The Bank Manager always took the stand that unless the writ petitioner deposited with the Bank the loan amount in its entirety, his payments instalment wise would not be reckoned and that is the precise reason, against his wishes, that these amounts totaling to Rs. 1,10,850/- were credited in different accounts standing in the name of the writ petitioner. 5. Similarly, the writ petitioner in pare 7 of the writ application, contends that pursuant to the notice served on him in the present proceedings under the Act of 1974, he went to deposit Rs. 50,000/- with the Bank but the Bank refused to receive the same and insisted upon payment of the entire dues. He was neither provided a copy of the accounts nor with the application which was filed by the Bank before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, alongwith the notice of the respondent No. 1. 50,000/- with the Bank but the Bank refused to receive the same and insisted upon payment of the entire dues. He was neither provided a copy of the accounts nor with the application which was filed by the Bank before the Assistant Collector and Magistrate, alongwith the notice of the respondent No. 1. Lateron, respondent-Bank credited an amount of Rs. 45,000/- in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner instead of term loan account as would be clear from the receipts annexed with the writ petition. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 22,850/- has been credited in the new Savings Bank Account of the writ petitioner on 20.9.89, whereas Rs. 1,000/- deposited by the writ petitioner on 10.5.90 has not been shown in either of the statements of account. Respondent-Bank instead of adjusting the amount in the loan amount, credited the amounts deposited by the petitioner in different savings bank accounts maintained by the petitioner. 6. The writ petitioner's further contention is that as would be evident from the statement of accounts, the respondent-Bank has charged a very high rate of interest arbitrarily and illegally and other expenses for which he is not at all liable. As regards the crop loan agreement, the interest is chargeable @ 10% per annum on the amount of Rs. 7,500/- as disbursed on 26.7.90 and 1.8.90. As per the tabulation chart mentioned in pare 9 of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought to contend that the respondent- Bank has charged just double the amount of interest actually due in the statement of accounts and the Bank has debited guarantee fee amount on various dates most arbitrarily and the insurance amount has also been debited from time to time without any information to the writ petitioner, and penal rate of interest has been charged which was never agreed upon. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that there is no co-relation with the amount actually claimed in the application for recovery of dues and the statement of accounts as supplied to him, and it is not discernible as to how and wherefrom the amount due has been arrived at. Perhaps, the sum disbursed and the amount claimed seems to be different and a flat rate of interest has been claimed for all accounts which is not relevant to the agreed rate of interest. 7. Perhaps, the sum disbursed and the amount claimed seems to be different and a flat rate of interest has been claimed for all accounts which is not relevant to the agreed rate of interest. 7. It is further contention of the writ petitioner that the respondent No. 2 Bank has resorted to the process of recovery under the Act of 1974, in an arbitrary manner and without any justifiable cause for the same. The span of repayment agreed upon and the time within which the Bank has resorted to the recovery proceedings clearly shows that the respondent-Bank has acted arbitrarily in the manner and with the extreme haste which was unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Assistant Collector and Magistrate, however, did not offer any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as contemplated by law. He also did not determine the liability as provided under the provisions of the Act of 1974 and the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 1976 (in short the Rules'). Instead of determining the exact amount of liability due from the writ petitioner, as and when the writ petitioner wanted to have an opportunity to repay the entire liability, it was construed that the amount has been admitted by the writ petitioner and thereafter, the Assistant Collector and Magistrate without adjusting the amounts as deposited by the writ petitioner, passed an order determining the liability of the writ petitioner, that too, without specifying the rate of interest and the amount of interest, for which amount there was a warrant of attachment of the agricultural loan of the petitioner, as would be manifestly evident from the orders passed by him, from time to time. 9. The Assistant Collector and Magistrate immediately after attachment of the land, issued an order for holding auction and sale of agricultural land allegedly charged and mortgaged with the Bank. 10. The Assistant Collector and Magistrate by passing the orders impugned and the Bank also by resorting to the proceedings in an arbitrary manner have prevented the writ petitioner from plying his tractor also so as to carry on his cultivation which has caused a great loss to him. 11. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner cited before me the following authorities : In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India & Another, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1274. 11. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner cited before me the following authorities : In S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India & Another, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1274. It was held that a writ of prohibition could he issued to confine Courts of inferior Tribunals within their jurisdictional limits. In Khageshwar v. Hoshram and others, AIR 1966 Allahabad 191 , a Division Bench held that if the order is without jurisdiction, a writ of prohibition must be issued. It was found in that case that where an appeal was not competent writ of prohibition could lie and in no circumstance, can an order without jurisdiction be allowed to stand. In Bhainron v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1988(2) RLR Page 512 , a Division Bench of this Court held that there are powers of authorised officer to attach property without determining the liability but the property cannot be put to sale without prior determination of the liability. It was held in this case that as and when a loan is advanced by a financial institution, property is mortgaged with the Bank. If an application for recovery of an amount is made to the authorised officer under the provisions of the Act and if he makes an order of attachment, it cannot be said that he had no such power. So far as sale of agricultural property is concerned, it can only be made after determining liability under the provisions of the Act. 12. As regards interest the petitioner cited the following authorities : M/s. Nathmal Bhaironbux and Co. and Others v. Kashi Ram and Others, AIR 1973 Rajasthan 271 , in which it was observed that the Court is vested with a wide discretion in the matter of award of pendente lite and future interest. Whether interest should be awarded pendente lite or for future and if so, at what rate, are matters which lie within the discretion of the Court though such discretion has to be exercised judicially in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The circumstances as would guide the determination of the question being varied, cannot at all be put down in any rigid formula. The discretion, by and large, has to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The circumstances as would guide the determination of the question being varied, cannot at all be put down in any rigid formula. The discretion, by and large, has to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of that case, it was, however, directed that it would be just and proper to order that the interest is made payable from the date of the final decree till realisation. In State of U.P. v. Reishma Devi and Others, AIR 1974 Allahabad 257 , it was held by a Division Bench that as regards award of future interest, it is the discretion of the Court and in omitting to say anything about future interest, the Court will be presumed to have taken the view that interest should not be awarded. 13. The further submission of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that no penal interest could be charged and the interest as provided in the Civil Procedure Code at the rate of 6% per annum ought to have been approved by the Assistant Collector, since the order passed in the present matter under the provisions of the Act had the force of a decree of Civil Court. 14. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank, drew our attention towards Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and contended that a transaction between a banking company and its debtor shall not be re-opened by any Court on the ground that the rate of interest charged by the banking company in respect of such transaction is excessive. He cited before me the decision in the case of Corporation Bank and Another v. D.S. Gowda, II (1994) Banking Cases 613 (SC) , in which it was held that agricultural loan is different from the commercial loan and cannot be treated at par. Farmers have no regular source of income, hence, quarterly or half yearly rests tantamount to payment of compound interest and therefore, interest should be charged with yearly rests and may be compounded if the loan/instalment becomes overdue. As regards Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act of 1949') it was, however, confirmed that the Court cannot interfere on the premise that the interest charged is excessive. 15. Mr. As regards Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act of 1949') it was, however, confirmed that the Court cannot interfere on the premise that the interest charged is excessive. 15. Mr. Kumawat, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank also referred to a decision in the case of Noida Enterpreneurs Association v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Another, (1994) Supp. (2) SCC 108 , in which it has been held that a writ petition disputing contractual obligation is not maintainable. In that case, the grievance was that the rate of interest and penal interest were being charged by the U.P. Financial Corporation which were higher than the ceiling provided in the guidelines issued by the refinancing institutions-Industrial Development Bank of India. It was held by the Supreme Court that the writ application was rightly dismissed by the High Court and that in such matters, there was no ground to interfere with the High Court's judgment. The facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable from the present one. 16. This Court quite appreciates the contentions urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Bank but then it is apparent from the statement of accounts as filed that the interest has not been charged at the rate agreed by the Bank with the writ petitioner and that being so, there has been a total non application of mind by the Assistant Collector & Magistrate in determining the liability of the writ petitioner. Furthermore, the Assistant Collector acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in passing the order regarding issue of warrant of attachment and proclamation of sale without determining the exact amount due from the writ petitioner and proceeded on a wrong notion of fact that the writ petitioner admitted the entire dues as mentioned by the Bank in course of recovery proceedings. 17. This Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, not only a writ of prohibition lies but also a writ of certiorari does lie inasmuch as the statutory authority under the Act has not proceeded in accordance with law and has not exercised its jurisdiction properly. 18. In this view of the matter, this Court accordingly sets aside the entire proclamation of sale and attachment and directs that the tractor and sprinklers in question to be returned to the writ petitioner. 18. In this view of the matter, this Court accordingly sets aside the entire proclamation of sale and attachment and directs that the tractor and sprinklers in question to be returned to the writ petitioner. The Assistant Collector & Magistrate, Sikar should proceed from the stage of filing of the written statement by the writ petitioner, determine the exact dues of the Bank by allowing the writ petitioner to make adjustment of the deposits made by him in the various accounts with the Bank till date and after determining the exact amount of dues, should grant the writ petitioner an opportunity to pay the amount in two or three monthly instalments. In case the writ petitioner fails to deposit the entire amount alongwith interest at the rate agreed upon, within the time as granted by him, the Assistant Collector and Magistrate would be free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the writ application succeeds to the extent as indicated above. There will he no order as to costs.Writ application allowed. *******