JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner by this writ petition prayed to set aside the order dated 07.02.1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara whereby order for recovery of amount due was issued by the SDO and a sale proclamation for the property of the petitioner was made. 2. This Court vide order dated 17.08.1998 passed the following order:- "Heard. Issue notice of the stay application as well. The petitioner undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs.90,000/- which according to him would be payable by him even after the deductions made in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 (5) S.C.C. 213 . In addition to the above, the upto date interest would also be paid. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner may be granted six months time to deposit the amount. The petitioner is granted six months' time to deposit the sum of Rs.90,000/- tentatively arrived at and further interest which would accrue against him within these six months. If this amount is paid within the stipulated period of six months the auction which is going to take place today will not be held by the respondents and any action taken under the proclamation notice would not be confirmed. After six months the respondent will review the matter and if the amount is paid then they will proceed to make adjustment and if the payment is not made then they will be at liberty to proceed with the auction." 3. The petitioner has filed a counter to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank on 21.09.2016 stating that he had taken three agricultural loans from the respondent-Bank (earlier the Rajasthan Bank Limited now ICICI) amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- in all (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/-). The petitioner has stated further that he has deposited the entire amount with the respondent-Bank along with interest @ 12.5% per annum. Statement of amount deposited by the petitioner has also been annexed with the additional affidavit wherein for the principal amount of Rs.70,000/-, interest of Rs.75,105/- for a period of 8 years and 7 months has been calculated, for the principal amount of Rs.10,000/-, interest of Rs.9,063/- for a period of 7 years and 3 months has been calculated and for the principal amount of Rs.30,000/-, interest of Rs.21,250/- for a period of 5 years and 8 months has been calculated. It is stated that a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- had already been deposited out of the total due, i.e., Rs.2,15,418/-. The difference amount of Rs.59,418/- with interest @ 12.5% p.a. for the period from 01.07.1994 to 18.08.1998 has been calculated amounting to Rs.30,328/-. It is stated that thus total sum, as on 15.08.1998, was Rs. 89,746/- and as on 16.02.1999, it was Rs.96,500/- which has been deposited in terms of the interim order dated 17.08.1998. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Corporation Bank Vs. D.S. Gowda & Anr., 1994 5 SCC 213 , the respondent-Bank could not have charged interest with periodical rates on the bank loans taken for agricultural purposes. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-Bank is bound by the RBI Instructions issued from time to time and, therefore, the demand raised by the respondent-Bank, as stated in the additional affidavit, for a sum of Rs.9,28,210.14 as calculated is illegal and unjustified. 5. It is further submitted that even on 0' (nil) principal amount, a sum of Rs.5,00,469/- has been calculated as interest, as is apparent from the table of the Ledger Account No. 100021 of the petitioner as shown by the respondent-Bank in their additional affidavit. He submits that the interest could have only been charged @ 12.5% p.a. and no penal interest could have been charged further. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondentBank submits that the Bank has not charged interest on periodical rates but has only charges interest on annual rate basis. It is a submission that as per the original agreement entered into between the parties, 12.5% per annum interest was to be charged on half yearly rates at the end of June and December and in case, any installment and interest is not paid, penal rate of interest may be charged on over due amount @ 2% per annum. He, therefore, submits that the demand was made calculating interest @ 14.5% per annum keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioner is on the lower side and interest amount as additionally 2% per annum basis must be calculated and paid. 6. Learned counsel Mr. He, therefore, submits that the demand was made calculating interest @ 14.5% per annum keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the amount deposited by the petitioner is on the lower side and interest amount as additionally 2% per annum basis must be calculated and paid. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Khatri appearing for the respondentBank also submits that the writ petition would not be maintainable as against the respondent-Bank while relying upon the Full Bench Judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gopal Prasad Varshney Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., 2009 3 RajLW 2029 (Raj.) . 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Firstly, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank regarding maintainability of the writ petition requires to be addressed to. This Court finds that the argument raised by the learned counsel deserves to be rejected at the threshold itself because firstly, the order impugned before this Court is the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1974') and a writ would lie against the State authority. If the respondent-ICICI Bank (erstwhile Bank of Rajasthan Limited) is a beneficiary on account of an order passed by the State Government, it would ip-so-facto held that the writ would not lie against the State wherein the respondent-Bank is also a party. 9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank in the case of Gopal Prasad Vasrshney (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, as in the aforesaid case of Varshney, an employee was claiming his pension. It is not a case where a claim has been filed before this Court while relying upon the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India which have been upheld by the Supreme Court with regard to imposition of interest rates. In view thereof, this Court finds that any banking organisation, whether any statutory bank or private bank, is required to and is bound by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and law laid down by Supreme Court. In view thereof, this Court finds that any banking organisation, whether any statutory bank or private bank, is required to and is bound by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and law laid down by Supreme Court. If the respondent-Bank makes a departure from such circulars or for that matter directions issued by the Finance Department or those which are issued as mandatory directions by the Central Government and proceeds to make recovery through State Authority, a writ can always be filed by any aggrieved party and such a writ would be maintainable. 10. Law in this regard is well settled that each case has to be examined on its own facts and the question regarding maintainability has also to be examined taking into consideration the facts which are available on record. A mechanical approach of straightjacket application of law is foreign jurisprudence. 11. Coming to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner had taken loans for agricultural purposes and had repaid loan amount of Rs.1,04,000/- upto the year 1994; whereafter he had also deposited a sum of Rs.9,000/- and Rs.43,000/- on different dates. The respondent-Bank issued a demand notice on 29.06.1994 demanding a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and the interest was calculated @ 14.5% per annum and if the said amount was not paid, the respondent-Bank initiated proceedings under the provisions of Act of 1974. The SDO on the said basis issued an order dated 07.02.1997 ordering the recovery of amount by auctioning the property of the petitioner and the District Judge dismissed the appeal on the ground of nonmaintainability. The petitioner has thereafter preferred this writ petition and an interim order, as quoted above, was passed in his favour. 12. It is noticed that no reply has been filed by the respondentBank however, an affidavit has been filed wherein the interest has been calculated on the principal amount as 0'. While the principal amount is shown as 'Zero' with Ledger Account No. 100021, interest of Rs,.5,00,469/- has been mentioned. It is also noticed that the principal amount of Rs.24,556.65 has been shown in one Ledger (401050014) which is also not explained. Apparently, the amount shown is based on the half yearly rates and the interest amount has been treated as principal amount. 13. In the case of Corporation Bank Vs. D.S. Gowda & Anr. It is also noticed that the principal amount of Rs.24,556.65 has been shown in one Ledger (401050014) which is also not explained. Apparently, the amount shown is based on the half yearly rates and the interest amount has been treated as principal amount. 13. In the case of Corporation Bank Vs. D.S. Gowda & Anr. (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "However, if, in any case, it is shown that the Bank was claiming interest in excess of that permitted by the circular/direction of the Reserve Bank, the Court could give relief to the aggrieved party notwithstanding Section 21-A to the extent of interest charged in excess of the rate prescribed by the Reserve Bank. A distinction must be drawn between court's interference on the premise that the interest charged is excessive and court's interference on the premise that the interest charged is in contravention of the circulars/directions issued by the Reserve Bank. However, no opinion need be expressed on the question whether Section-21-A would debar the courts from interfering if the circulars/directives issued by the Reserve Bank do not fix the maximum and leave it to the discretion of the banks to determine the rate of interest above the minimum fixed. But if the Reserve Bank has fixed the maximum rate of interest in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 21/35-A of the Banking Regulation Act, Section 21-A would be attracted and the transaction would not be liable to be reopened on the ground that the rate of interest fixed is excessive even though not exceeding the ceiling determined by the Reserve Bank." 14. Thus, in case of agricultural loans, the position has been made amply clear by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India which do not permit the banks to charge compound interest with quarterly rest/half yearly rests and the rate of interest has to be charged per annum. 15. The respondent Bank has not stated, as to whether the loan already paid by the petitioner before the demand of the remaining loan, was adjusted on annual rate of interest or with half yearly rests. 16. This Court is satisfied that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has paid the remaining loan amount along with interest @ 12.5% per annum, as noticed above. 16. This Court is satisfied that in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has paid the remaining loan amount along with interest @ 12.5% per annum, as noticed above. However, the penal interest @ 2% per annum has not been paid. Thus, this Court concludes that interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is directed to pay the remaining amount of penal interest @ 2% per annum, to be calculated upto the date of demand, i.e., 29.06.1994. The Bank shall issue the demand letter, after calculating the exact amount accordingly and the petitioner shall within a period of three months thereafter deposit the same. 17. Upon depositing the aforesaid amount, the Bank shall release the documents relating to the property of the petitioner which are lying with them forthwith. 18. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.02.1997 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara is set aside; and the present writ petition stands partly allowed. 19. No costs.