BAL CHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arises out of the following circumstances:

(2.) THE petitioner, Bal Chand, took a loan of Rs. 4,554.71 from the Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur, for seed and fertilizer. As the said amount was not paid back by the petitioner, proceedings for recovery were initiated against him. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Rajas -than Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short here in after 'the Act'), contending that he was an agriculturist, and that, the Debt Relief Court should determine his debt. The Panchayat Samiti, Sultanpur contested the application contending that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act, was not maintainable as the loan granted by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner, did not fall within the definition of the term 'debt' as given in clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act. The learned Debt Relief Court framed a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Section 6 of the Act. The learned Debt Relief Court after hearing the arguments on preliminary issue held that the loan granted to the petitioner did not fall within the definition of debt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act. Consequently, the petition was held to be not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Debt Relief Court, the petitioner, Bal Chand, filed a revision petition under Section 17 of the Act, before the District Judge, Kota, contending that the learned Debt Relief Court failed to exercise his jurisdiction, as the application under Section. 6 of the Act was not maintainable. The learned District Judge upheld the order passed by the Debt Relief Court and dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 24th August, 1976. Before this Court, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Debt Relief Court and that of the District Judge inter alia, on the grounds that the loan in dispute is a debt falling with in the definition of the 'debt' as given in the Act and that Section 4(k) of the Act, being ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution, the debt payable to the local authority, viz., Panchayat Samiti could be adjudged under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) TO substantiate his arguments, Mr. Soral, learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that same result would follow if the obseravations made by this Court in Nathudan v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 Raj 374 are studied.