RAMAKRISHNA SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the notice under Annexure -5, whereunder the State Bank of India, Bidyadharpur Agricultural Development Branch, had advertised for auctioning the gold pledged with the Bank as security for loan obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed that the scheme relating to Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme, as published in 1990 may be implemented and the loan incurred by the petitioner may be waived.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ application are as follows: The petitioner had obtained loan of Rs. 18,000/ - from the Bank on 8.3.1989 for establishing a Poultry Farm and had pledged 101.200 grams of gold. The petitioner claims that the Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme of Orissa (Annexure -2) which came into force in the year 1990 was applicable to his case. As the loan had been obtained for the purpose of agriculture. The petitioner after being aware of the said scheme filed several representations before the bank for waiving the loan but did not receive any reply. The last such representation was made on 8.7.1996. The petitioner further claims that between January, 1994 and January, 1996, the petitioner being pressurised by the bank was compelled to repay a sum of Rs. 16,200/ - on several instalments. It is claimed by the petitioner that in spite of such payment made by him and in spite of the fact that he is eligible to the debt relief under Annexure -2, the bank has published the auction notice in newspaper on 17.10.1996 notifying that the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner would be auctioned on 26.10.1996. In the above back -ground, the petitioner claims that the notice regarding auction of his gold ornaments should be quashed and the bank should be directed to waive the loan of the petitioner.

(3.) IN Clause -2(d) of the scheme, 'borrower' has been defined to mean an individual who has borrowed loan from one or more banks not exceeding Rs. 10,000/ - for any activity of agriculture or artisan activity. It has been further indicated in the said clause that a non -wilful defaulter will come within the definition of 'borrower'. It is not necessary to consider as to whether a loan for poultry farm would come within the meaning of agricultural activity or as to whether the petitioner was a non -defaulter, in view of the condition in the said clause to the effect that loan or loans from one or more banks should not exceed Rs. 10,000/ -. Admittedly, the petitioner had borrowed Rs. 18,000/ - and as such cannot be covered under this scheme even if it would have been otherwise applicable. In such view of the matter, the main contention of the petitioner that the benefit of the scheme should be made available to him is not sustainable.