RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. Almost every day the High Court has to consider writ peti tions on a common theme of loans taken by citizens from banking institutions, not paying the loans and resisting the exercise by the bank to retrieve the undischarged debt. This Court has had an occasion to see cases filed ten years ago by debtors who do not dispute the taking of the loan but take issues with the banking institutions when the time comes to return the loan. Petitions by such persons acknowledge the debt. But the submission before the Court are on legal niceties on how not to pay the debt. Loans given by the banks are public moneys. A planned economy permits credit to entrepreneurs as the system rests on the faith that the credit so granted will be repaid and the cycle generates a self-generating economy. Advancing cash credit by a bank with an overdraft facility by a bank is meant to generate a business economy. A loan from a bank is another modality to generate business. These are commercial transac tions. With each credit granted, the economy also expects credit worthiness from those who take loans that they will return money to the institutions granting credit to them. 2. Tbday, we have a petition in which the petitioner claims that he is an educated unemployed youth. He took a loan of Rs. 25, 000. 00 from the Bank of Baroda, Branch Ajuha, District Allahabad. The loan was taken on 17 March, 1985, twelve years ago, for setting up a small printing press. It ap pears that the business venture did not suc ceed and the petitioner ran into losses. The schedule of repayment has not been placed before the Court. But the petitioner men tions that the bank took steps in having the loan realised as a public debt. Consequently, the petitioner received a recovery certificate for Rs. 20, 505. 00 and other administrative expenses. This shows that between the time the petitioner was given the loan in 1985 and the recovery certificate sent to him nine years later since the loan was taken, some payment was made by the petitioner. When the recovery certificate was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner rushed in this writ petition before the High Court. This shows that between the time the petitioner was given the loan in 1985 and the recovery certificate sent to him nine years later since the loan was taken, some payment was made by the petitioner. When the recovery certificate was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner rushed in this writ petition before the High Court. For nine long years the petitioner did not close his account with the bank to discharge the debt on which credit was given to him. 3. Heard Mr. Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. P. Misra, learned counsel for the Bank of Baroda, Branch Ajuha, District Allahabad. 4. Now, on behalf of the petitioner, legal submissions are being made that the petitioner may be entitled to exemptions under the scheme for providing self-employment to educated unemployed youth and further that this loan cannot be realised as a public debt. What the petitioner is suggesting to the Court is that the loan be waived or he be granted subsidy or the bank may not realise it as a public debt and may resort to other means. The petitioner is further suggesting that the bank must involve itself in litigation to recover its money. Thus, in a litigation, the petitioner is suggesting a litigation and with more litigation the courts are supposed to participate in a never ending story of unend ing loans continuing unpaid. Thousands of such petitions are pending at the Allahabad High Court. The time has come that the Court must take stock of the position to see for itself on how much interference there has been of admitted debts which are not being discharged and how will this amount be made up by those citizens who take loans from the banking institutions and have no intention to pay. 5. The Court has had an occasion to reflect on this aspect. In that case the Court was examining in similar circumstances the resistance of a debtor to ward of a debt under the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. In that case (Writ Petition No. 4800 of 1994; Lal Chand Bhatia v. State of UP. and others), the Court observed:- "the Court is not inclined to interfere in this petition. " 6. In that case the Court was examining in similar circumstances the resistance of a debtor to ward of a debt under the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. In that case (Writ Petition No. 4800 of 1994; Lal Chand Bhatia v. State of UP. and others), the Court observed:- "the Court is not inclined to interfere in this petition. " 6. The petitioner submits that by law the loan cannot be recovered as a public debt as the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990 ought to have been taken into account by Zila Udyog Kendra, Bareilly, respondent No. 3 before processing the recovery proceedings. 7. The Court is of the opinion that in equity the (sic) relief to quash a recovery proceeding ought not to be considered. Today, the time has come atleast to recog nise that large number of loans which have remained undischarged over the years do remain as debts. On the logic of law exemp tion is being sought, whatever be the reason, that the loan be waived. To do so some authority has to consider it. 8. The fact of the matter is that of loans which remain unpaid as public debts this circumstance infuses a syndrome of deficit financing into the national economy. Of every loan which will not be paid but having been granted as a public debt, the incidence will fall on other citizens tc be realised by indirect taxes. On mans meat will become another mans poison. 9. In the present case that a loan was taken and that it remains undischarged is an accepted fact. The Court is not inclined to interfere in this writ petition by a preroga tive writ to grant a relief which the petitioner seeks;. 10. The petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 11. A few days ago the Court had yet another occasion to express itself when a debtor was resisting paying a loan of Rs. 12, 600 from a rural bank and expected that the aforesaid Debt Relief Scheme of 1990 be considered for granting him a rebate of Rs. 10, 000. 00 and a subsidy of 25 per cent. In this case (Writ Petition No. 7346 of 1994; Kalandarv. Vindhyavasini Gramin Bank and others), the Court observed:- "the loan given to the petitioner is a simple commercial loan for setting up a business venture by installing a flour mill. 10, 000. 00 and a subsidy of 25 per cent. In this case (Writ Petition No. 7346 of 1994; Kalandarv. Vindhyavasini Gramin Bank and others), the Court observed:- "the loan given to the petitioner is a simple commercial loan for setting up a business venture by installing a flour mill. The petitioner should have discharged the loan by now. It does not appear that at any stage at the time of taking the loan, the petitioner had set the record right that the loan was being granted with an understanding that (a) it would carry a subsidy of 2596 and (b) It would be a different situation where a notice of termination is sent on behalf of all co-lessors by one co-lessor under his signa tures, such a notice could be treated to be a notice on behalf of all co-lessors but where the notice is given by only one person claiming himself to be the sole landlord but the evidence proved that even as per the admission of the landlord there were co-landlords and they have not joined the plaintiff in the notice or in the suit, the notice of ejectment and of demand under the Rent Control Act would be invalid. [para 10] after 1990 he would receive a waiver of Rs. 10, 000/- under the scheme. Insofar as the Court is concerned, it is a commercial transaction. It is an unpaid debt. Per sons like the petitioner who will evade the pay ment of bank loans, are contributing to the deficit financing of the national economy. What the petitioner has received as a loan and will not return, will ultimately contribute to deficit financ ing and will be made up by taxes, direct or indirect. If undischarged loans like the petitioner are put together itwould reveal a staggering amount. Insofar as waiver of the loan is concerned, the petition, regard being had to the nature of the loan, does not call for interference. Further, this is an exercise in which the Court cannot go into and if the administration would liks to forget about collecting the loan from the petitioner, it is a matter between the administration and its ac countability to the public exchequer. But, the Court cannot interfere in this matter to give any indulgence to the petitioner. The petition is misconceived and is accord ingly dismissed. The interim order dated 9-3-1994 is discharged. But, the Court cannot interfere in this matter to give any indulgence to the petitioner. The petition is misconceived and is accord ingly dismissed. The interim order dated 9-3-1994 is discharged. " 12. Thus, the Court is of the view that there is no occasion for the High Court to interfere in these matters of admitted debts not discharged. The equity, does not lie with the petitioner. 13. The petition is, thus, dismissed. Petition dismissed. .