PAVAN COLD STORAGE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI Hari Ashok Kumar has put in appearance for respondent No. 3 Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Farrukhabad. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for respondents No. 1 & 2. In my opinion, this petition can be disposed of finally at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

(2.) IN this petition recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,58,162/- as land revenue arrears has been challenged by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 3 gave a cash credit working facility to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16th March, 1988 and also gave a term loan of Rs 7.5 Lacs in the year 1988, for the building and machinery i. e. Ice plant and Milk Chilling Plant. The said loan was repayable with interest upto December, 1993. It has ;been further submitted that due to losses suffered by the petitioners the amount could not be paid in time. Respondent No. 3, however, has issued recovery certificate under section 11-A of the Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 for realisation of the aforesaid amount as land revenue arrears on which basis citation has been served on petitioners to pay the amount Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that transaction being a commercial one it could not be realised as agricultural loan. It has been further submitted that though the citation was served fixing date 19th February, 1993, petitioners were arrested on 18th February, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this arrest was illegal.

(3.) SECOND submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were arrested on 18th February, 1993 though the citation served on them was in respect of 19th February, 1993 No doubt, the revenue authorities should not have arrested, the petitioner before the date fixed in the citation to appear. However, it is not denied that petitioners have been released thereafter, when the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-However, it is noticeable that the respondents can proceed and adopt simultaneously more than one mode for recovery of the amount. Since the petitioners have already been released same day after depositing the aforesaid amount, I need not say anything in this regard. Learned counsel for petitioners also relied on an order passed by this Court on 17 February, 1993 by which this court stayed the recovery in Identical circumstances. In my opinion, the order relied upon is interlocatory and cannot be relied on as precedent. Since this petition is being disposed of finally no help can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid order.