ESWARACHARI Vs. PRIMARY LAND DEVELOPMENT DANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (On preliminary hearing) This writ petition is filed by a member of the 1st respondent (Primary Land Development Bank, Malur in Kolar District). Even according to his averments, he had borrowed from the said respondent-Bank certain sums of money. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 7,200 on 15-12-72 and a further sum of Rs. 2,420 on 16-8-73 for purposes of digging a well and installing a pump set therein. These two loans were secured loans. From the Bar it is made clear, by securing, the petitioner means that these lands were mortgaged to the 1st respondent-Bank in respect of the ssid loans. Later on as the amount borrowed was found to be insufficient, he approached the respondent-Bank for another loan in the sum of Rs. 3,000. This loan was sanctioned but it is alleged, it has not been released in his favour so far.

(2.) In this writ petition, his chief grievance is that the second respondent has issued two notices as per Exts. 'A' and 'B' to the petition. These notices are issued under the proviso to S. 99 of the Kaenataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') . These notices have been issued by the second respondent in consequence of two applications being made by the list respondent under S.99 of the Act as is apparent from the language of the notices. The object of S.99 is very clear. It provides a simple mode of recovery of any debt due to a Society by presenting an application to the Registrar or any other officer subordinate to him and empowered by the Registrar in that behalf to recover the said debt on the basis of the first charge created in accordance with S. 32(1) of the Act. For convenience S.32(1) of the Act is reproduced below :

(3.) It is difficult to accede to this contention having regard to the plain language of S.32(1) of the Act. The purpose of S. 32 is to create a statutory charge in favour of the co-operative society subject to the exceptions mentioned in that section and no more. Whether the land on which the crop is to be found is itself secured or the row materials stored therein or any produce, machinery, cattle, agricultural implements, industrial implemets etc., are not secured, the cp-operative society which had advanced the loan whether as a Bank or as a Society can recover its debts in more than one manner as is obvious from the provisions made in S.70 falling within Chapter IX and also under S. 99 which falls under Chapter XII. The clause with which the S. 99 of the Act commences makes a reference to Chapter IX. In other words, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Chapter IX for recovery of debts, the Society is permitted to have recourse to S.99 of the Act when the Society chooses to proceed only against his properties in respect of which statutory charge is created automatically bv operation of law in terms of S. 32(1) of the Act. There is no difficulty in understanding the meaning, purpose and scheme of the Act and the section to which I have referred to in the course of this order. The petitioner cannot escape his liability to repay the debts by starting the collateral proceeding by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prevent the 1st respondent from recovering the debts due to it from him. For the reasons already stated, the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel cannot be accepted. The notices issued as per Exts.'A' and 'B' are in order and according to law and there is njo informity which calls for interference.