Judgement Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is preferred for quashing the impugned notice dated 16.7.2009 issued by the State Bank of India, Branch-Bikapur, District-Faizabad to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI ACT, 2002". 3. It appears that the petitioner had applied for term loan of Rs.15 lacs and credit card limit for Rs.10 lacs from time to time under the scheme of Central Government known as Self Employment Scheme for establishing a factory for carrying on business of repairs and manufacture of machinery. During the period 2007-09 he deposited certain amounts of loan and on 16.7.2009 the Respondent-Bank issued impugned notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act. 4. It also appears that the petitioner on 2.1.2009 had moved an application to the Respondent-Bank for re-financing the factory and also moved an application on 17.12.2009 for compromise. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the loan was taken by the petitioner for establishment of industry in connection with the agriculture, hence the recovery proceedings initiated against him is governed under Section 11 (A) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and not under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, hence impugned notice issued against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. In rebuttal learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank has submitted that since there has been a default in repayment of loan by the petitioner, impugned notice was issued to the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 15,94,429/- under Section 13 (2) of the Act as the petitioner is governed by the provision of Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and not under Section 11 (A) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed in F. A. F. O. No.2008 of 1988 : Atma Ram Misra v. Bank of India decided on 23.10.1989 in which the Court has considered the definition of agriculture, agricultural purpose and agriculturist as given in sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 2 of the Act which reads as under :- 2. Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) agriculture and agricultural purpose includes making land fit for cultivation, cultivation of land, improvement of land (including development of sources of irrigation), raising and harvesting of crops, horticulture, forestry, cattle breeding, animal husbandry, dairy farming, piggery, poultry farming, seed farming, pisciculture, apiculture, sericulture and such other activities as are generally carried on by persons engaged in any of the aforementioned activities and also includes :- (I) marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport; (II) the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activity; (III) the acquisition of gobar-gas plant; and (IV) the establishment and maintenance of agro-service centres:" Explanation :- For the purpose of this clause, the expression agro service centre means a place or a shop where the entrepreneurs, trained by the U.P. State Agro-Industrial Corporation Limited, carry on the sale of seeds, fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides, or other goods of agricultural use or agricultural operations in respect of land held by other by tractors other mechanised process on hire or repair of the agricultural implements (b) agriculturist means a person who is engaged in agriculture; 8. In the case of Atma Ram Misra (supra) the loan was taken by the petitioner from the Bank for extension of his cold-storage and the Bank had started the recovery proceeding under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The petitioner has alleged that he had taken a loan as Small Scale Industrial Unit and not as an agriculturist, hence it was prayed before the lower court that the loan taken was not recoverable under the said Act. The court below rejected the petition for interim injunction and aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff had preferred appeal in that case. Paragraph 6 relied upon by the petitioner in that judgment reads thus :- "6. The above definitions show that the marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport are also included in the definition of agriculture and agricultural purpose. A reading of whole of Section 2 of the Act indicates that the legislature has given a wide compass to the word agriculture. The word and occurring between the word agriculture and agricultural purpose is purposive. Both of them cannot be bisected. They are to be read together. The definition quoted above makes even the establishment and maintenance of agro service centre as activity relating to agriculture and agricultural purpose. The word and occurring between the word agriculture and agricultural purpose is purposive. Both of them cannot be bisected. They are to be read together. The definition quoted above makes even the establishment and maintenance of agro service centre as activity relating to agriculture and agricultural purpose. It would be needless to emphasise that the cold storages serve a useful purpose in advancing interest of agriculturist. The storage of the agricultural products of a farmer like potato, fruits etc. serve the interest of farmers. The farmers can store their produces and sale it when the word agriculturist is defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, means a person who is engaged in agriculture. Reading clauses (a) and (b) of Section 2 together there remains no iota of doubt that the storage of agricultural products by a person will make it a pursuit of an agriculturist. He will be deemed under the Act, to be a person who is engaged in agriculture." 9. In rebuttal learned counsel for the petitioner has further taken a ground that the petitioner had moved an application to the Senior Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Bikapur, District-Faizabad informing him that since in the month of July 2008 the premises of factory has been flooded by water due to which irreparable loss was caused and as such he was unable to deposit the loan amount within time. Thus the petitioner is not wilful defaulter as explained in Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme 1990; and in such circumstances he again represented before the Bank for re-financing the industry so that he may continue his business, but his request has not been accepted by the Respondent-Bank. 10. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to deposit whole of the amount in easy instalments which may be rescheduled by the Court. In this regard he has also moved before the Bank vide his letter dated 17.12.2009 for compromise, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this petition. 11. In this regard he has also moved before the Bank vide his letter dated 17.12.2009 for compromise, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to this petition. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it appears that the petitioner had applied for loan under the scheme of Central Government known as Self Employment Scheme and not under Section 11 (A) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 or for any other agricultural purposes, hence the Bank vide their letter dated 26.12.2009 in reply to the letter dated 17.12.2009 of the petitioner informed him that his application for compromise may be considered only in case he deposits token money. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner was given loan under the scheme of Central Government known as Self Employment Scheme and he has utilized the same for establishment of industry for carrying on business of repairs, acquisition of implements and machinery. It was not a loan for agricultural purpose or even under the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The petitioner may as an incidence of business be repairing or manufacturing some machinery which may be used by farmers also but the words in the definition clause will take colour from each other. Running a factory in which some tools of agriculture may be repaired or manufactured would not make it established wholly for agricultural purpose. The facts of the case in Atma Ram Misra (supra) are quite distinguishable as in that case recovery proceeding had been initiated under the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and not under SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, the petitioner does not fall within the meaning of agricultural as defined in Section 2 of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 as he is not involved in the activities defined therein. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notice dated 16.7.2009 issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act is illegal, is devoid of merits and cannot be sustained. Further the petitioner had been granted easy instalments for repayment of loan at the time when he had taken loan and the High Court cannot re-schedule repayment of loan agreed by the petitioner and the Bank in the contract of loan. As such, prayer of petitioner for fixing instalments also cannot be allowed. 14. Further the petitioner had been granted easy instalments for repayment of loan at the time when he had taken loan and the High Court cannot re-schedule repayment of loan agreed by the petitioner and the Bank in the contract of loan. As such, prayer of petitioner for fixing instalments also cannot be allowed. 14. In view of the above, we do not consider it to be a fit case for interference by this Court in our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.