Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 782 (RAJ)

Suchha Singh v. Tehsildar (Rev. ) Raisinghnagar

2015-04-07

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. The petitioner who is an agriculturist, had obtained a loan of Rs. 84,600/- on 31.8.1987 for the purchase of Mahendra Tractor which was to be repaid in 14 half yearly instalments with interest prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India commencing from July, 1988. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had repaid an amount of about Rs. 1,00,000/- upto December, 1997 and he could not pay the remaining amount due to natural calamities which had destroyed his crops. The respondent bank without serving any notice upon the petitioner, is stated to have approached the Tehsildar under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974. The Competent Authority under the aforementioned Act vide Order dated 21.7.1998 directed the auction of the tractor of the petitioner. 3. The Counsel for the respondent has submitted that a perusal of the order-sheet of the Competent Authority dated 2.9.1998 would reveal that notice was duly served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and I am of the view that there is merit in submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The averments in the Petition that no notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order remain un-rebutted in the absence of any reply filed by the respondent. It is well settled that any order visiting a person with adverse consequences can only be passed after opportunity is afforded to him to present his case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ajaib Singh v. Tehsildar (Revenue), Raisinghnagar & Anr., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3906/97), wherein in a similar case the Writ Petition was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to make an application for settlement of the loan amount in accordance with scheme framed by the Government of India. The operative part of the judgment reads as under- "In view of the discussion above, the Writ Petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned notice dated 22.5.1997 (Annexure-1) is quashed. The petitioner shall make an application to the respondent Bank for settlement of the loan account in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government of India within a period of one month from the date of this order. The impugned notice dated 22.5.1997 (Annexure-1) is quashed. The petitioner shall make an application to the respondent Bank for settlement of the loan account in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government of India within a period of one month from the date of this order. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the respondent Bank in terms of the Scheme. If the petitioner fails to make the application within the stipulated period or for any reason the loan account is not settled in terms of the Scheme, the respondent Bank shall be at liberty to taker the appropriate measures for recovery of the amount in accordance with law including by taking recourse to the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1974. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to assail any adverse order passed against him in accordance with law. No order as to costs. 5. At this Juncture, the learned Counsel for the respondents very fairly states that Respondent No. 2 Bank is ready to consider the case of the petitioner for settlement of the loan in terms of scheme of circulars applicable thereto as the aforementioned Government of India scheme has lapsed. 6. Therefore, the Petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 21.7.1998 is lashed. The petitioner shall make an application to the respondent Bank for settlement or the loan in accordance with the scheme or guidelines, which are in force at present. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to challenge any adverse order passed against him in accordance with law. The application shall be considered and decided by the respondent bank in terms of any current scheme or guidelines. If however, the matter is not settled the respondent bank shall be at liberty to recover the amount including taking recourse to the proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1974. The petitioner shall also be a liberty to assail any adverse order passed against him in accordance with law. Petition allowed.