AJAI KUMAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. Almost every day the High Court has to consider writ peti tions on a common theme of loans taken by citizens from banking institutions, not paying the loans and resisting the exercise by the bank to retrieve the undischarged debt. This Court has had an occasion to see cases filed ten years ago by debtors who do not dispute the taking of the loan but take issues with the banking institutions when the time comes to return the loan. Petitions by such persons acknowledge the debt. But the submission before the Court are on legal niceties on how not to pay the debt. Loans given by the banks are public moneys. A planned economy permits credit to entrepreneurs as the system rests on the faith that the credit so granted will be repaid and the cycle generates a self-generating economy. Advancing cash credit by a bank with an overdraft facility by a bank is meant to generate a business economy. A loan from a bank is another modality to generate business. These are commercial transac tions. With each credit granted, the economy also expects credit worthiness from those who take loans that they will return money to the institutions granting credit to them.

(2.) TBDAY, we have a petition in which the petitioner claims that he is an educated unemployed youth. He took a loan of Rs. 25, 000. 00 from the Bank of Baroda, Branch Ajuha, District Allahabad. The loan was taken on 17 March, 1985, twelve years ago, for setting up a small printing press. It ap pears that the business venture did not suc ceed and the petitioner ran into losses. The schedule of repayment has not been placed before the Court. But the petitioner men tions that the bank took steps in having the loan realised as a public debt. Consequently, the petitioner received a recovery certificate for Rs. 20, 505. 00 and other administrative expenses. This shows that between the time the petitioner was given the loan in 1985 and the recovery certificate sent to him nine years later since the loan was taken, some payment was made by the petitioner. When the recovery certificate was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner rushed in this writ petition before the High Court. For nine long years the petitioner did not close his account with the bank to discharge the debt on which credit was given to him.

(3.) THE Court has had an occasion to reflect on this aspect. In that case the Court was examining in similar circumstances the resistance of a debtor to ward of a debt under the Debt Relief Scheme, 1990. In that case (Writ Petition No. 4800 of 1994; Lal Chand Bhatia v. State of UP. and others), the Court observed:- "the Court is not inclined to interfere in this petition. "