The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act and the interpretation of the Act in determining the amount of dues, along with the emphasis on principles of natural justice and the charging of interest at yearly rests for agricultural loans.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, wherein he made following prayer:-

"Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the writ petition may be accepted and appropriate writ order and direction the order of S.D.O. Bharatpur dated 27/06/2003 (Annexure-10) be quashed and set aside and the respondent no.3 may be directed to charge the interest at the rate of 6& yearly basis and the direction may further be given to the respondent no.3 for making a fresh statement after due determination of the amount payable and also the respondent no.3 may be directed that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of all the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and any other any relief."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for grant of loan for buying a Tractor with the respondent no.3-Bank for agricultural purposes on 18.02.1995. The respondent no.3-Bank agreed to grant a loan of Rs. 1,70,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the repayment of the loan was to be made in nine-instalments. The first eight instalments were of Rs. 19,000/- and the last instalment was of Rs. 18,000/-. The certified copy of the agreement has been placed on record as Annexure-1. The instalments were to be paid on yearly basis and first instalment was made due and payable on 18.08.1995, and the last instalment was to be paid on 18.08.2004. The petitioner made the following payments :

3/6/1995	Rs. 30,000.00
4/6/1995	Rs. 30,000.00
18/5/1998	Rs. 45,000.00
8/9/1999	Rs. 10,000.00
25/5/2000	Rs. 35,000.00
29/6/2001	Rs. 1,00,000.00
Total	Rs. 2,50,000.00

The respondent no.3-Bank gave notice of the balance amount of Rs. 93,198/- and the said action of the Bank was challenged by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum, Bharatpur and soon thereafter the respondent no.3-Bank with an ulterior motive filed an application before the S.D.M. Bharatpur under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act and the S.D.O. without going into the merits of the case and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner passed an order dated 27/06/2003.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from Annexure-10, the order-sheets of the Court of S.D.M. Bharatpur reveal that the Bank filed an application on 09.05.2003 and the notice was issued for 26.06.2003. The petitioner appeared before the Court of S.D.O. on 26.06.2003, and the case was fixed on 27.06.2003. The petitioner filed his reply/objection petition on 27.06.2003, which was not considered properly, and the S.D.M. wrongly determined the amount of Rs. 1,03,326/-. He contended that as per agreement of loan, the interest was to be charged at yearly rests, whereas as per the statement of account, it is clear that the Bank has charged interest at half-yearly rests. He referred the order of S.D.O. dated 27.06.2003 and contended that the Bank Officer appeared before the Court of S.D.O. and contended that as per agreement the Bank charged interest at yearly rests, whereas the Bank has charged interest at half-yearly rests and on that basis the S.D.O. has determined the amount to be recovered from the petitioner, which is absolutely illegal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that on 26.06.2003, he appeared before S.D.O. and on that day itself, the proper opportunity to file reply was not given and the case was fixed on the next day i.e. 27.06.2003. However, he filed his reply on 27.06.2003, but the same has also not been considered properly while passing the order determining the amount under the provisions of the Act on 27.06.2003.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda and Another, reported in (1994) 5 S.C.C. Page 213 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the directives and circulars of the Reserve Bank of In

Click Here to Read the rest of this document