RAVI S. DHAVAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Is a strange case which offends the equity jurisdiction of any Court what to speak of the high Court. If the contract between the parties in a commercial world is to be judged by the parameters of this case, then no faith will be left between banks and customers while granting loans in furtherance of socio-economic programmes for the rehabilitation of those who are genuinely repressed financially. Loans taken from banks are meant for repayment, as opposed to embroilment in litigation. ( 2 ) TO purchase five buffaloes for agriculture and farm use, the petitioner Om Prakash Gupta. obtained a loan from the State Bank of India, for Rs. 25. 000. Then the petitioner went to an insurance company. i. e. , the "oriental Insurance Company, Dada Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. He covered the risk of his five animals under a contract of Insurance. ( 3 ) BY natural causes or otherwise, all the five animals died one by one. The petitioner contends that the animals were sick. The petitioner was cautious enough to write to the insurance company each time when any animal became sick by intimating the insurance company that the animal was sick and the insurance company must arrange for a Doctor to attend on the sick animal. The petitioner was keeping his record straight that should an occasion arise to seek a claim against the contract of insurance, prior intimation on record was already with the insurance company as a foundation to a claim. ( 4 ) THE State Bank of India gave a notice to the petitioner to pay the loan. The bank sent a business like letter that there was a contract, in writing, between the petitioner and the State bank of India that the petitioner would undertake to discharge the loan at the rate of Rs. 1,000 every month until the loan is cleared. The bank intimated petitioners counsel that the insurance, which the petitioner had taken out, has nothing to do with the bank and the two things are separate. The petitioner was advised that while he may see reimbursement of any claim from the insurance company, the bank was entitled, simpliciter. to receive the amount which had been loaned. The bank reminded the petitioners counsel that the petitioner is obliged to discharge the loan on a simple Interest at 14 per cent. The petitioner was advised that while he may see reimbursement of any claim from the insurance company, the bank was entitled, simpliciter. to receive the amount which had been loaned. The bank reminded the petitioners counsel that the petitioner is obliged to discharge the loan on a simple Interest at 14 per cent. The petitioners counsel was further advised that he must advise the petitioner that the amount under the loan, the Interest and 10 per cent recovery charges be tendered and the matter be brought to a close. ( 5 ) THE petitioner apparently did not take the hint and filed the present writ petition, tying up the bank in litigation. The petitioner has utilised the prerogative writ jurisdiction of the High Court yet inequitably. Now the petitioner contends that of any amount which he has paid, the balance is covered under a scheme of the State Government known popularly as the "rin Rahat Yojna". To fortify his contention, submissions have been made to formulate an exercise on how not to pay the loan. The petitioner relies on a circular order of the Chief Secretary of the Government of uttar Pradesh dated 30th May. 1990. to say that to the extent of Rs. 10,000. he Is entitled to a waiver of the loan as of right. The petitioner seems to forget that when he took the loan to purchase the five buffaloes, it was a simple bank transaction. The circular order of the Chief secretary, providing subsidy is meant for the social and economic programmes of the government for poor farmers, weavers, stonecutters and landless agricultural labourers. ( 6 ) THE petitioner is affluent enough to purchase five buffaloes and in addition insure the animals under an insurance cover. The Government circular order does not apply to him. The petitioner is neither poor nor needy nor landless. He has tied up a simple issue of a loan contract with his bank and brought it to litigation by not keeping to the terms of the loan to discharge it at the rate of Rs. 1 ,000 per month. The petitioner now tells the bank that the risk claim from the Insurance company when received, will satisfy the loan. He has tied up a simple issue of a loan contract with his bank and brought it to litigation by not keeping to the terms of the loan to discharge it at the rate of Rs. 1 ,000 per month. The petitioner now tells the bank that the risk claim from the Insurance company when received, will satisfy the loan. When the bank told the petitioner that it had nothing to do with the petitioners arrangement with the insurance company, the petitioner now falls for the plea that he is entitled to a subsidy under the rin Rahat Yojna from the Bank. ( 7 ) PERSONS like the petitioner, [f encouraged, will lead the banks and the State to bankruptcy, and will make a failure of any socio-economic programme to claim subsidies when they are not entitled to it. If bank loans are not returned by persons like the petitioner to make up the deficiency, innocent persons who have nothing to do with these loans, will find themselves paying taxes, direct or indirect, to make up the deficit in the budget of a planned economy. Subsidies as an economic programme as a theory and in its bona fides were meant to mitigate injustice to the economically repressed section of entrepreneurs so that they participate without economic inequity in a self-generating economy. Subsidies were not meant as largesses and handouts to dent a deficit in the economy and bleed the nation to bankruptcy, and turn the nation for public finances from international funding agencies. A debt beyond a debt. ( 8 ) THE Court Is not Impressed either by the legalities, raised by the petitioner before this Court nor with his attempts to subvert the law, which the Court interprets as a negation of equity in an exercise of how not to pay debts to the bank. ( 9 ) THLS petition has no merit. It warrants dismissal. The sooner the petitioner discharges the loan to the State Bank of India the better it would be. This, the petitioner may do by the close of the middle of this year, i. e. , on or before 30 June, 1998, failing which the bank will be entitled to realise this amount as a public debt. It warrants dismissal. The sooner the petitioner discharges the loan to the State Bank of India the better it would be. This, the petitioner may do by the close of the middle of this year, i. e. , on or before 30 June, 1998, failing which the bank will be entitled to realise this amount as a public debt. ( 10 ) IF the petitioner keeps to the terms of this order, then the Interest charged will be simple interest from the date of borrowing to the date of the discharge of loan. .