ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition draws to focus the sorry state of affairs in which the nationalized banks in our country are functioning. The attitude towards lending money to public, advancing loans has not changed a wee bit from the times of Shylock to the present day. 2. This is an instance where the facts of the case fully illustrates how picturesquely the nationalized bank has conducted itself in a more exploitative manner than the proverbial 'Marwadi'. 3. We proclaim ourselves as a Republic. Private banks were nationalized through an Act of Parliament for the purpose of providing loans, assistance and financial help to the common man at large and to break the monopoly of few persons who were controlling the financial system in the country. Unfortunately, the trends have never changed. Though the Britishers left this country way back in the year 1947, their ways, their methods have taken strong roots and continue to haunt us. Likewise, though the Banks were nationalized in the year 1969, modus operandi of the banks has not changed a wee bit. They continue to exploit the gullible public even when they are associated in promoting social welfare schemes. The present case is very picturesque illustration of all these aspects. 4. The brief facts leading to the present petition is that the Petitioner had been sanctioned a loan of Rs. 95,000/- for the purpose of setting up a pharmacy shop i.e., a drug store under what is known as 'Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana (PMRY)'. All these schemes have laudable objects and make all offers. To what extent, they are implemented and reaches the public at large is a matter in doubt nay, it is the fact that it seldom reaches the persons for whose benefits such schemes are formulated and sponsored, in the manner in which they are contemplated. 5. The petition averments in paragraph 2 of the petition states that the said scheme was meant to help the un-employed youths in the country and to extend financial assistance for their individual business which they wish to carry out to come up in the society. 6. 5. The petition averments in paragraph 2 of the petition states that the said scheme was meant to help the un-employed youths in the country and to extend financial assistance for their individual business which they wish to carry out to come up in the society. 6. It is the version of the Respondent No. 3-Bank of India, a Nationalized Bank which has financed the Petitioner and the officers of the State Government who are instrumental in acting as recovery agents for the banks in case of default in repayment of the loan amount by the borrower; that the scheme is a State sponsored scheme; that the significance of the word 'State sponsored scheme' is that when a default occurs, for the purpose of recovery of the defaulted amount, the financier, namely, the bank can press into service the recovery procedure as envisaged under the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, (for short 'the Act') i.e., by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of this Act. 7. However, even here there is considerable confusion, in as much as, a 'State sponsored scheme' as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act which reads as under: 2(h) 'State sponsored scheme' means a scheme sponsored by way of financial assistance by the State Government under which the State Government either: (i) advances money to a banking company or a Government Company for the purposes of disbursing loans, advances or grants or for the purposes of sale of goods on credit or hire purchase; (ii) guarantees or agrees to guarantee the repayment of a loan advance or grant or the payment of the price of goods sold on credit or hire purchase; can be one only when it satisfies one or the other of the sub-clauses in this section and not otherwise. It is not as much averred on the part of the Respondents that which of the two clauses are attracted for characterising the scheme as a 'State sponsored scheme' for the limited purpose of examining this writ petition, I am proceeding on the premise that it is a State sponsored scheme without prejudice to the contentions raised and without giving a finding or determining this question. 8. To continue the narration on facts, the loan amount for Rs. 8. To continue the narration on facts, the loan amount for Rs. 95,000/- was advanced by the bank in terms of the standard format of the agreement entered into between the banks and the Petitioner in and around 21.3.1995, the loan itself was sanctioned on 24.3.1995. The significance of sanctioning of the loan is that from this day the bank starts debiting interest on the loan account. The agreement, inter alia, provided for repayment of the loan in monthly installments at Rs. 1,900/- per month. It is to be noted that in terms of the provisions of the scheme itself which reads as under, KANNADA MATTER is provided for providing loan upto the upper limit of Rs. 1 lakh out of which 5% should be brought in as capital by the borrower and 95% would be by way of finance subject to repayment over a period of 7-8 years; that the repayment would begin after the expiry of 6-18 months from the date of advancing the loan in terms of Clause-12 of the scheme. 9. It appears that the State Government had given wide publicity for 'Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana' by apprising the public at large the salient aspect of the scheme and urging upon the persons eligible for availing the scheme to make use of the good opportunity under the scheme and to file applications on or before 2.11.1993 which was the last date for availing the benefits under this scheme. 10. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is obvious that he wanted to avail maximum benefit under the scheme and that is how the bank also had sanctioned loan upto Rs. 95,000/- the upper limit. The Petitioner being a person holding a diploma in pharmacy being desirous of taking benefit under this scheme, had applied to the bank and that is how the bank sanctioned the loan for setting up a medical shop. 11. 95,000/- the upper limit. The Petitioner being a person holding a diploma in pharmacy being desirous of taking benefit under this scheme, had applied to the bank and that is how the bank sanctioned the loan for setting up a medical shop. 11. But, it is averred in the writ petition that the bank which was identified for disbursing the loan even under the scheme had its own ideas over and above what was envisaged under the scheme; that it incorporated further conditions and insisted upon certain compliances over and above what the scheme itself provided; that the Respondent No. 3- a Nationalised Bank taking advantage of the precarious position in which the Petitioner had been placed and who was hard pressed for raising capital for his venture had coerced the Petitioner into submitting to its terms. 12. It is averred in the writ petition that though the loan to an extent of Rs. 95,000/- was sanctioned, the Petitioner was released with only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and the Respondent No. 3 retained the balance of the loan amount, namely, Rs. 50,000/- and it was held back with the bank as a fixed deposit account in the name of the Petitioner. 13. It is also averred that though under the scheme, the financial banking company could not have insisted for providing any security, the Petitioner was compelled to provide or offer immovable property as collateral security and the Petitioner was left with no choice but to provide it under insurmountable difficulties and hardship; that the agricultural property of his uncle measuring an extent of 9 acres of land was given not only as collateral security by way of mortgage but his uncle was also to stand surety for repayment of the loan etc. 14. It is also averred that the bank though should have effected or insisted upon repayment of the loan only after the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of disbursement of the loan, which interval could be extended upto 18 months and the repayment itself was spread over 7-18 months from the date of sanction, the bank after expiry of 6 months period, instead of releasing the entire loan amount and having released only an initial amount of Rs. 45,000/- along with interest, it is averred that all this action was clearly in contravention of the terms of the scheme under which the loan was being sanctioned; that the charging of interest or claiming of interest itself could have been only after the expiry of 18 months from the date of initial sanction; that, on the other hand, immediately after the expiry of 18 months, the bank recovered a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the additional loan of Rs. 37,000/- that it had released at that time and handed over only a sum of Rs. 27,000/-. What is averred in the petition is that out of the total loan amount sanctioned, the Petitioner was in effect provided only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- at the time of initial sanction i.e., on or around 24.3.1995 and a further sum of Rs. 27,000/- after the expiry of another six months after burdening the Petitioner with an additional loan amount of Rs. 37,000/- on the security of the deposit of Rs. 45,000/- with the Bank in his name and what actually reached the Petitioner's hands after the expiry of six months from the date of initial sanction was only a sum of Rs. 72,000/-. 15. Though the pattern of repayment is not clear nor has the Petitioner averred as to what amount he had repaid either immediately after six months or after 18 months period as contended, it appears there was almost 'nil' repayment and in such state of affairs, the bank had put the Petitioner on notice on 20.2.1999 (copy at Annexure-B) calling upon the Petitioner to repay the total sum of Rs. 1,12,983/- and also interest though the loan sanctioned was for a sum of Rs. 95,000/-, the total due was Rs. 1,25,000/- and due outstanding beyond the period permitted time on the day was Rs. 1,12,983/-. 16. The bank promptly followed up this notice by forwarding a requisition it appears to the Respondent No. 1 - the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, requesting him to issue recovery certificate to the Deputy Commissioner for recovery of this amount as an arrears of land revenue and had notified the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 17. 17. It is rather strange that even when the notice was issued by the Respondent No. 3-bank to the Petitioner on 20.2.1999 calling upon him to pay the amount within a period of 15 days failing which it would resort to such action as is permitted in law not only against the Petitioner but also against the surety, the notice was nevertheless promptly followed up by a further recovery notice issued by the Respondent No. 1-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society acting as a prescribed officer in terms of the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Rules, 1983 (for short 'the Rules'). The show cause notice was being issued to the Petitioner to appear before him on 23.3.1999 and explain as to why a recovery certificate should not be issued against him for recovery of the amount in terms of the provisions of the Act itself etc. 18. Very strangely, this notice is issued within about 8 or 9 days of the issue of the first notice by the bank i.e., even before the expiry of the notice period of 15 days allowed by the bank itself to the Petitioner for repayment under the earlier notice, on the failure of which alone it could have apprised the Petitioner that it would resort to recovery. The second notice also does not mention as to what is the exact amount for which the recovery certificate will not forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner and it only recites that the bank had advanced a sum of Rs. 95,000/- to the Petitioner and in that connection it is proposed to forward the recovery certificate to the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. 19. It appears the Petitioner had again responded to this show cause notice in terms of his reply dated 7.4.1999, inter alia, trying to explain as to how the Petitioner could not appear before the prescribed officer on the fixed date, namely, on 23.3.1999 and requesting for further opportunity etc. 20. 19. It appears the Petitioner had again responded to this show cause notice in terms of his reply dated 7.4.1999, inter alia, trying to explain as to how the Petitioner could not appear before the prescribed officer on the fixed date, namely, on 23.3.1999 and requesting for further opportunity etc. 20. It appears that the Respondent No. 1 obliged the Petitioner to the extent of furnishing him the certified copies of the action that he had taken hitherto in forwarding the recovery certificate to the Deputy Commissioner by furnishing copy of the bank's application, relevant portions of the agreement, copy of the notice dated 1.3.1999 and the order passed on 23.3.1999 forwarding the recovery certificate and copy of the affirmation on oath by the bank as to the loan position etc., in terms of his communication dated 22.4.1999 (copy at Annexure-E). This information has enabled the Petitioner to approach this Court seeking necessary relief as the Petitioner was confronted with the unenviable position of facing action of revenue recovery of Rs. 1,20,583/-. 21. The Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the recovery notice dated 11.12.2000 (copy at Annexure-H) issued by the authorities of the revenue department in Form-37 under Rule-112 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 22. Sri Gurumath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner also requests the Court to quash the order issuing recovery certificate (copy at Annexure-F) dated 23.3.1999 submitting that though an averment is made in this regard in the body of the petition, in the prayer column, prayer for quashing of this order is not recorded and therefore seeks to file an application even now to include the prayer for quashing of this order issuing recovery certificate. 23. Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has strongly objected to filing of an application at this stage to seek for additional prayer in the writ petition and that it virtually amounts to seeking for an additional relief even without an opportunity to the Respondent No. 3 etc. 24. 23. Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has strongly objected to filing of an application at this stage to seek for additional prayer in the writ petition and that it virtually amounts to seeking for an additional relief even without an opportunity to the Respondent No. 3 etc. 24. Be that as it may, ultimately it is a matter concerning the relief that is to be granted by the Court if the Petitioner deserves such relief in the writ petition and the application is more a formality and in such circumstances, application is accepted and allowed as it only touches upon the relief that can be granted if justified on the facts already pleaded and circumstances that prevail in the case. 25. The writ petition is on the premise that the recovery officer, namely, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to resort to recovery any amount as against the Petitioner; that the recovery proceedings are not tenable as against the Petitioner either under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or based on a certificate issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979; that the State Government was not competent to prescribe or nominate an officer for the purpose of recovery of any amount under the scheme which was essentially a Central Government scheme and not a scheme of the State Government and therefore the entire proceedings from the stage of the Respondent No. 3 - Bank applying to the Respondent No. 1 purporting to be the prescribed officer and upto the stage of recovery notice are all bad in law, without jurisdiction and are required to be quashed. 26. It is also urged in the petition that the Petitioner has not been given a proper opportunity at all even in terms of the enquiry contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act as this Sub-section envisages minimal enquiry by the prescribed officer for determining the amount due to the bank and outstanding to the bank before issuing a certificate; that the Petitioner who had not been disbursed with the entire loan amount at all was not liable to pay the loan amount as indicated by the bank and that the Petitioner has been deprived of a proper opportunity to make good his version etc. 27. 27. What is essentially urged in the writ petition is the obnoxious practices resorted to by the bank in taking undue advantage of the helplessness and the gullibility of persons like the Petitioner; that when the sanctioned loan amount was Rs. 95,000/- releasing only a sum of Rs. 45,000/- and retaining balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of fixed deposit and their action further working upon fixed deposit for an additional loan of Rs. 37,000/- and here again withholding Rs. 10,000/- and releasing only Rs. 27,000/- etc., and that all such action on the part of the bank was clearly contrary to the provisions of the very scheme namely, the 'Prime Minister's Rozgar Yojana (PMRY)'. 28. The Respondent No. 3-Bank who is the financier, has filed statement of objections. While the sanction of the loan amount to the extent of Rs. 95,000/- is not disputed, the factual averments in the writ petition to the effect that only Rs. 45,000/- was disbursed to the Petitioner and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was retained under pressure purporting to be by way of fixed deposit are denied as false. Though the fact situation of fixed deposit of Rs. 50,000/- being with the bank in the name of the Petitioner as also the security for repayment of the loan in the form of mortgage of the agricultural land belonging to the Petitioner's uncle is not disputed, what is averred is that it is not done under any pressure or coercion; that it is a voluntary act on the part of the Petitioner and not at the insistence by the Bank and even otherwise it is sought to be averred taking a guarantee is in the normal course of the banking practice and nothing obnoxious or abnormal about it. 29. Even with regard to the initial moratorium period of 6-18 months, while it extends to all such provisions is not disputed, what is averred in the statement of objections is that the moratorium period of 6-18 months will be given to the borrower depending on the requirement and circumstances of each individual case and even the duration of repayment of the loan amount ranging from 7-8 years varies from one individual to another and from one borrower to another. 30. It is also averred in the statement of objections that the sanction of further sum of Rs. 30. It is also averred in the statement of objections that the sanction of further sum of Rs. 37,000/- was also a voluntary act on the part of the Petitioner and not because of any compulsion on the part of the bank; that the action that they had taken is not contrary to the provisions of the scheme. 31. It is however not disputed that the recovery proceedings against the Petitioner was initiated under the provisions of the Act and the prescribed officer-Respondent No. 1 was used for the purpose of forwarding of a recovery certificate of the Deputy Commissioner and there are other averments disputing the petition averments and denying them which are in the nature of general denial and may not be very material for consideration at present. 32. However, in paragraph-17 of the statement of objections, a reference is made to the scheme formed by the Central Government and that the original applications are forwarded to the bank by the District Industrial Centres of the State Government in the State of Karnataka and the committees formed by the government to select the beneficiaries and therefore it is averred that the scheme is a scheme which is sponsored by the Government of Karnataka by the internal arrangement as between the Central Government and the State Government and the bank being roped in for the purpose of the beneficiaries under the scheme. 33. I have heard Sri Gurumath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3-Bank and Sri Bharamagouda B. Goudar, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 34. Submission of Sri Gurumath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by drawing the attention to provisions of the Act is that the very invoking of this Act is without jurisdiction; that the Respondent No. 3-Bank could not have applied under Section 3 of this Act as the Petitioner's case is not covered under any one of clauses (A), (B). 34. Submission of Sri Gurumath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner by drawing the attention to provisions of the Act is that the very invoking of this Act is without jurisdiction; that the Respondent No. 3-Bank could not have applied under Section 3 of this Act as the Petitioner's case is not covered under any one of clauses (A), (B). (C) or (D) of Section 3(1) of the Act; that the scheme itself is not a State sponsored scheme as it is a scheme by the Central Government; that even assuming for argument sake, the Act applies and the bank could have applied to the prescribed officer, an enquiry as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act has not been conducted in a proper manner nor an opportunity given to the Petitioner; that the recovery proceedings have been foisted on the Petitioner in a hustled manner and without any opportunity; that the amount sought to be recovered, in fact, is not due by the Petitioner and therefore the recovery notice itself should be quashed as also the order forwarding the certificate for recovery etc. 35. What is highlighted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is the manner in which the Respondent No. 3-Bank has conducted in the matter of distribution of the loan amount, the pressure and coercion put upon the Petitioner, the non-release of the entire loan amount and as to how the bank has resorted to unethical practices by taking advantage of the gullibility of persons like the Petitioner etc. 36. Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has strongly countered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 37. 36. Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has strongly countered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 37. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 submits that the bank has followed a proper procedure in accordance with the provisions of the Act; that the scheme is a scheme which is very much a State sponsored scheme as it is obvious from the various publications and notifications issued by the Officers of the State Government; that in fact, the State Government having set up the Committee for identifying the beneficiaries and the State Government also forwarding applications to the bank after identifying the beneficiaries to whom the bank advances the loan amount, the scheme is, in fact, a State sponsored scheme, in which event, the bank in case of default, can definitely invoke the provisions of the Act; that the bank was fully justified in making a request to the Respondent No. 1-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies for issue or forwarding of a recovery certificate for the amount which was due to the bank from the Petitioner, particularly, as the Respondent No. 1 is the prescribed officer to whom the bank could have made such an application under the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act, in as much as, under Rule-3 of the Rules, the prescribed officer is defined as an officer who is an officer as contemplated under Clause (i) of Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 and therefore the Respondent No. 1 has the competence and jurisdiction to forward a certificate and further follow up action is justified in law. 38. It is also contended on behalf of the Respondent No. 3-Bank that the bank had never resorted to any unethical practices; that the transaction was in the normal course of banking business; that there was no pressure or coercion on the part of the bank to compel or pressurize the Petitioner to have a term deposit for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- nor was there any compulsion on the Petitioner to seek additional loan of Rs. 37,000/-; that there is no remiss on the part of the bank in going about its business. 39. 50,000/- nor was there any compulsion on the Petitioner to seek additional loan of Rs. 37,000/-; that there is no remiss on the part of the bank in going about its business. 39. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 also submits that the Petitioner had been put on notice, had been given an opportunity both by the bank who had apprised him of the loan amount outstanding and even by the prescribed officer who had put him on notice and fixed the date for the Petitioner's appearance also; that it was only default on the part of the Petitioner by not appearing and putting forth whatever contentions he wanted to make good and it is only due to the failure on the part of the Petitioner himself he could not make good his case; that there was a violation of principles of natural justice nor denial of a proper opportunity to the Petitioner and therefore urges to dismiss the petition. 40. So far as the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned for whom, learned Government Pleader appears, it is submitted that the scheme was a State sponsored scheme; that therefore the bank was definitely justified in invoking the provisions of the Act; that the provisions of Section 3 are very much applicable in a situation of this nature and the bank has followed the procedure for the purpose of invoking the same and the writ petition may be disposed of taking note of this stand of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 41. Though the Petitioner has come up with definite and pointed allegations in the writ petition, particularly, about the manner in which the loan amount of Rs. 95,000/- that was sanctioned as early as in March, 1995; that the disbursement was very tardy; that what was disbursed was only Rs. 45,000/- and further loan being sanctioned after six months for Rs. 37,000/- are all averred attributing coercion on the part of the Respondent No. 3-Bank. The Respondent No. 3-Bank except for coming out with a denial has not sought to explain as to how such thing could have happened. 42. It is rather difficult for this Court to believe the averments made on behalf of the Respondent No. 3-Bank at its face value. The Respondent No. 3-Bank except for coming out with a denial has not sought to explain as to how such thing could have happened. 42. It is rather difficult for this Court to believe the averments made on behalf of the Respondent No. 3-Bank at its face value. The (legendary) banking practices of subjecting the customers to levy of interest by compounding at monthly intervals, mounting up of outstanding due by adding such periodic interest, getting signatures of the borrowers on blank papers, unfilled forms are all legion and have come to stay as a normal banking practice in the country. It is extremely hard to believe that a person who is identified as a beneficiary under the self financing scheme and who is hardly endowed with capital to start his business and for starting a drug shop with a meager loan amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- of which Rs. 95,000/- is the amount financed by the bank, is availed of only to the extent of Rs. 45,000/- and borrower voluntarily deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the bank and goes in for an additional loan of Rs. 37,000/- on the security of such deposit after about six months. It does not make any business sense on the part of the borrower. It definitely makes good business sense on the part of the lender and the lender who is out to improve upon his business, who is out to show efficiency in his business at any cost. Unfortunately, the bank has lost sight of the fact that it is acting as a financial agent, as part of a scheme envisaged by the Central Government, as a social welfare scheme sponsored by the State/Central Governments. 43. Even if it is to be accepted that it is a State sponsored scheme, being one, only on the State financing the loan transaction itself and in such a transaction, the bank if resorts to such practices, it is hard to believe that a poor person like the Petitioner would redeposit a substantial portion of the borrowed amount with the bank which earns interest at a lesser rate may be at around 8 or 9 percent in the present case whereas he is made to pay interest at the rate of 13% on the entire sum of Rs. 95,000/-. To compound misery of the borrower on the security of the very deposit of Rs. 95,000/-. To compound misery of the borrower on the security of the very deposit of Rs. 50,000/-, the bank sanctions further loan of Rs. 37,000/-, again the rate of interest being at 13% which means the total amount that is lent to the Petitioner becomes a sum of Rs. 95,000/- + Rs. 37,000/- = Rs. 1,32,000/- on which amount the bank charges interest at 13% may be compoundable and it is not known as to at what intervals the interest is being compounded though the scheme itself does not provide for any compounding of interest at all. 44. It is a telltale story of the sorry state of affairs in which the banking institutions are functioning and how social welfare schemes meant for needy and under privileged sections of the society seldom reaches them but are being sabotaged. The transaction is clearly not a help to persons like the Petitioner but a burden to him. 45. The only solace or the saving grace in the matter is that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the pharmacy shop which the Petitioner had started is still in existence and is being continued. May be because the Petitioner stopped repaying the loan amount and not because of any other reason! It appears except for the sum of Rs. 25,000/- which the Petitioner was asked to deposit at the time of entertaining the petition and for passing interim order in this writ petition which amount has been since deposited it seems there is no other repayment made by the Petitioner to the bank! 46. It is a clear illustration as to how a scheme is visualized for achieving social good by providing employment opportunities to unemployed youth containing good provisions and having a laudable object has gone awry, by the participants in the scheme not implementing the scheme in the spirit in which it was promoted. 46. It is a clear illustration as to how a scheme is visualized for achieving social good by providing employment opportunities to unemployed youth containing good provisions and having a laudable object has gone awry, by the participants in the scheme not implementing the scheme in the spirit in which it was promoted. It is very necessary for the Central Government which is the creator of the scheme and the State Government which sponsors the scheme to ensure that the financial institution which is roped in as a part of the scheme do not sabotage the scheme by having recourse to such unethical obnoxious banking practices which is claimed as normal banking practice, but in my opinion, undoubtedly are in the nature of unethical banking practices because of which the benefit never reaches the borrower and the borrower invariably resorts to the other extreme of not repaying any amount at all and trying to make the best of the bargain by thinking that whatever they have borrowed is good for them. 47. If such is the state of affairs, no such scheme can work and quite naturally the banks also will be very vary of advancing loans to such persons. It is quite possible in the present situation that the State Government might have made an internal arrangement with the bank for advancing 50% of the loan and that is how the bank might have hit upon the idea of insisting upon deposit of 50% of the loan amount with the bank and disbursing only the balance 50%. Be that as it may, the entire proceedings indicate the very sorry state of affairs in which such schemes end up. 48. This apart, on the legal aspect of the recovery proceedings, the scheme if is accepted as a State sponsored scheme to the extent the bank is a financial institution under the scheme, the provisions of Section 3 of the Act are attracted. Here again, there is a dispute as to whether any one of clauses (A), (B), (C), (D) form different situations envisaged, is attracted at all for the purpose of requesting the prescribed officer to issue a recovery certificate. What is urged by Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 is that the present is a situation governed by Clause (B) or Section 3(1) of the Act. What is urged by Sri Raviprakash, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 is that the present is a situation governed by Clause (B) or Section 3(1) of the Act. Though I have my own reservations about Clause (B) being clearly attracted, for the purpose of the present case, I proceed on the premise it is one and examine the matter on such premise. If the matter is examined in such perspective, then the Respondent No. 3 being a banking company should have forwarded a certificate to the Deputy Commissioner through its local agent as contemplated in Clause (3) of Section 3 of the Act. However, what is urged in the present situation is that to accord an opportunity as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act, an application was made to the prescribed officer, notified in terms of Clause (1) by issue of a notification by the State Government and authorizing such officer as the prescribed officer. Though the Respondents are not in a position to place before the Court, particular notice under which the Respondent No. 1 has been notified to have been duly authorized for this purpose, I proceed on the presumption that he should be one as the officer himself has described him to be one even in the very notice that he had issued for the purpose of Section 3(3) of the Act. 49. In the background of all these developments, apart from other technicalities or legal aspects, I am of the clear view that even if such prescribed officer should determine the amount, it should have been on a proper notice and opportunity accorded to the person before issue of a certificate to the Deputy Commissioner, to realise the amount as an arrears of land revenue. Realising the amount as arrears of land revenue is a serious matter with grave repercussions on the borrower as well as the surety. The matter is of grave concern for the Petitioner and therefore an opportunity as contemplated under Section 3(3) of the Act in the enquiry should not be one which is illusory or a mere formality, but a proper and effective opportunity. In the present case, the prescribed officer in his notice has not even indicated the amount for which the recovery certificate was proposed to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. In the present case, the prescribed officer in his notice has not even indicated the amount for which the recovery certificate was proposed to be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. In the absence of even the amount, the notice is a totally inadequate notice and the proceedings purported to be in pursuance of such notice and in terms of the order dated 23.3.1999 cannot be sustained as a valid order in the eye of law. 50. Accordingly, the order made by the first Respondent in case No. RC/957 of 1998-99 dated 23.3.1999 (copy at Annexure-F) as also the consequential recovery notice dated 11.12.2000 (copy at Annexure-H) issued by the Respondent No. 2 are both quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari. 51. It is however open to the Respondent No. 3-Bank to make a proper application in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1)(3) of the Act and thereafter it is for the prescribed officer to hold a proper enquiry and on being satisfied with the outstanding amount and if need be forward the recovery certificate to the Deputy Commissioner etc. 52. The Bank on its part to ensure that the application is being made to the prescribed officer as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the rules and not otherwise and while doing so also to keep in mind the provisions of the scheme and the benefits assured to a borrower under this scheme. 53. The Petitioner being put to all sorts of hardship, harassment, difficulties, it is appropriate that the Respondent No. 3 should compensate the Petitioner by way of cost which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Respondent No. 3 within a period of 30 days from today, failing which on an application made by the Petitioner, the registry shall issue a certificate. However, the bank is also permitted to adjust the cost awarded against it, to reduce outstanding from the Petitioner. 54. Writ petition allowed. Rule issued and made absolute.