HARWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition while praying for following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner took loan of Rs.1,65,000/- from the respondent-Bank on 12.03.1996 for purchasing a tractor. When the petitioner failed to repay the loan as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the respondent-Bank moved an application on 21.08.2000 for recovery of loan amount before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar (for short 'the SDO' hereinafter) under section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act of 1974' hereinafter). The SDO had issued notice of the application moved by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner, however, despite due service, the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against her. The SDO had directed to issue attach warrant and in pursuance thereof, the tractor in question was attached and put to auction. Ultimately, the tractor was auctioned at the price of Rs.70,000/-. However, when the whole due amount was not recovered from the said auction of the tractor, another notice dated 16.07.2001 was issued to the petitioner, asking her to deposit an amount of Rs.1,60,713/- by 31.07.2001. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition, while praying for aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 give unfettered right to the Bank and the prescribed authority to acquire the land and to attach the same without determination of the debt in accordance with due process of law. It has also been argued that there is no provision for determination of the debt and it does not even provide proper opportunity to confront the demand raised by the loanee bank. It has been contended that any provision, which deprives agriculturists of their land or immovable property without established procedure of giving due hearing for determination of debt, is simply draconian and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended that sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 virtually presume that the certificate of the Bank and its complaint to be true and correct account and in the event of non-payment of the amount as determined by the Bank, the property of the agriculturists is attached without any enquiry into the fact whether the amount of parties have been properly debited and credited and whether the interest has been charged at reasonable rates in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the prescribed authority under sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 are the persons, who have no experience in the field of law and therefore, they cannot be the proper authorities for determining the demand raised by the loanee bank.