HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55487 of 2011 Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- B.M. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.B. Sahai Hon'ble Sunil Hali,J.
A citation for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,76,300/- on account of default in payment of loan has been questioned by the petitioner in this petition. Recourse has been taken to Section 11-A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 by the local Principal Officer of the respondent Bank by referring a certificate to the Collector who is required to effect the recovery. The interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought for quashing the citation/recovery certificate by the petitioner.
The power of the Court to entertain petition of like nature is restricted only in reviewing the mode in which the amount due is certified by the Bank. Any lapse or error in certifying this amount can be subject matter of judicial review in such proceedings. The issues, which are purely factual in nature and relate to the breach of terms of the agreement, are beyond the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any amount sought to be recovered is to be certified by the Principal Officer of the respondent Bank before it is referred to the Collector for recovery. The reference to the Collector for recovery of the amount so certified must be acknowledged by the borrower or determined by the authority concerned. In this petition, there is no challenge to the mode and manner in which the amount sought to be recovered is certified before referring it to the Collector .All that is agitated before this Court is the inability on the part of the borrower to pay the money in terms of an agreement executed with the Bank.
In essence, the petitioner seeks a direction for altering terms of the agreement by filing the writ petition which is beyond the scope of writ court. The Court's power is limited. Once a borrower acknowledges the amount sought to be recovered from him, the mode and manner of its payment will always depend upon the terms of the agreement unless the bank consents to waive any such condition of agreement. In absence of any consent by the respondent Bank, the Court will not accede to the request of the borrower. I say so, as any such direction would be in violation of terms of the agreement and same can be reviewed only in case both the parties agree in this behalf.
The Court can not enforce terms of agreement while exercising its judicial power in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the respondent-Bank agrees to accept the loan from the borrower in instalments, a direction can be issued in this behalf. The Court can act only as a facilitator and not as an adjudicator of the right of borrower to make payment in instalments. In the present petition, petitioner has accepted the amount mentioned in the citation and agrees to pay the same in easily instalments. The respondent-Bank has no objection if the amount is paid in instalments.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the petitioner may deposit the entire amount directly in the concerned Bank in 6 equal quarterly instalments, provided the first instalment shall be paid by 1.11.2011.
During period of deposit, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance.
In case, petitioner defaults in depositing any of the instalments within the stipulated time, this direction shall stand vacated and the authorities will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
On deposit of the entire amount as per the recovery certificate, the recovery certificate shall stand withdrawn. The petitioner shall also be liable to deposit 50% of the collection charges with the respondent Bank along with last instalment and before the withdrawal of citation.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2011 NS (Justice Sunil Hali)