HARPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF MP AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) dated 25/5/2015 (Annexure P/2) for Rs.5,37,776/ - under section 3(1) Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam, 1987'). Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition in nutshell are to the effect that according to the petitioner, she is running a Boutique in the name and style, M/s Harman Punjabi Suit Collection at Gwalior. The petitioner has obtained loan from the Central Bank of India for purchase of motor vehicle; Fiat Punto, chasis No.MCA11814E07055587 DJZ. On 20/11/2014, the Central Bank of India (respondent No.5) had sanctioned loan of Rs.5,00,000/ - which was to be repaid with equal monthly installments of Rs.8,600/ -. According to the petitioner, she has paid Rs.2,100/ - on 21/11/2014, Rs.6,000/ - on 02/03/2015 and Rs.50,000/ - on 26/05/2015.

(2.) Thereafter, the proceedings for issuance of RRC have been initiated vide Annexure P/1 by the respondent No.5/Bank purportedly for not having paid monthly installments regularly. Thereafter, the Revenue Recovery proceedings by the Tahsildar, District Gwalior (respondent No.3) were initiated by issuance of notice dated 25/05/2015 (Annexure P/2) for payment of Rs.5,54,009/ - (Rs.5,37,776/ - + 16,133/ -) and fixed the date 02/06/2015 for appearance of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner did not appear before the said authority. As such, the petitioner's Boutique shop was seized on 31/07/2015. Again, a notice was issued on 18/08/2015 (Annexure P/4) by the respondent No.5. It appears that the petitioner did not respond and has filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, respondents No.4 and 5/Bank have filed a detailed affidavit and documents. It is contended that in exercise of the powers under clause (b)(i) of section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 1987, the State Government has declared number of schemes as "Socially Desirable Schemes" vide notification dated 13/09/2000 (Annexure R/5). In the "Socially Desirable Schemes", 'Personal Consumer Loans' is also included. The Central Bank of India has also formulated a detailed Retail Lending Policy (Annexure R/6) which includes 'Personal Loan Schemes' details whereof are provided for in clause 6.2 thereunder which covers the 'loans for vehicles' as also the Master Circular issued by the Bank dated 20/12/2013 (Annexure R/7). As such, it is incorrect to say that the car loan advanced to the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1987. It is further contended that the machinery provided under the Adhiniyam, 1987 can always be galvanized for recovery of the loan as arrears of the land revenue as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 1959) in the event of default or non -payment of installments of loan. The respondents/Bank is entitled to request for issuance of RRC to the revenue authorities under section 3(1)(B) of the Adhiniyam, 1987. The competent authority under the Code, 1959 can execute the RRC for recovery of the loan as arrears of land revenue. As a matter of fact, any other mode for recovery of loan is barred under section 3(5) of the Adhiniyam, 1987. On merits, the respondents No.4 and 5/Bank have denied the averments made in the writ petition and it is contended that though as per terms and conditions of the loan advanced on 20/11/2014, the petitioner was required to get the vehicle registered with the Regional Transport Authority and also ensure inspection of the vehicle by the Bank authorities but uptill date, neither the vehicle is registered nor the same is made available to the Bank authorities for inspection. It is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Besides, non -registration of the vehicle also makes the petitioner liable for penal action under the Motor Vehicles Act as plying of vehicle without registration is an offence thereunder. Petitioner has failed to pay regular monthly installments of the loan. Number of notices were issued affording opportunity to make good the default but is of no avail. Under the circumstances, the loan account was declared as Non Performance Asset (NPA). On 15/04/2015, last notice was issued to the petitioner (Annexure R/1) giving her to understand that the loan was advanced in December, 2014. Petitioner has not paid regular installments at the rate of Rs.8,539/ - per month.