The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, are applicable only in cases where the loan in question has been advanced under a State Sponsored Scheme, as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act.

( 1 ) THROUGH these various writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the right of the opposite party Banks to realise the amount of loan taken by the petitioners, as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Recovery of Dues Act only), and have prayed for quashing the Citation, issued by the opposite party district authorities. Since the controversy involved in all these writ petitions is the same, hence all the writ petitions are disposed of together.

( 2 ) WE have heard S. /shri Ranjit Saxena, Rajendra Kumar Mishra. N. S. Chahar. Ashok Bhushan, ran Vijai Singh, P. N. Mishra and S. N. Srivastava. learned counsel for the petitioners, and s. /shri Sharad Verma, V. K. Goel. Ajai, Rajendra Prasad Gupta, Sachin Mohan, K. L. Grover. Ashish Bhattacharya, S. P. Srivastava and the Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 953 of 1997. M/s. Anupam Sari Centre borrowed loan from the respondent Central Bank of India under Cash Credit Facility. The loan borrowed by the petitioner. the petitioner contends, is a commercial loan, not under a State Sponsored Scheme. The said amount cannot be recovered under the provisions of the Recovery of Dues Act, The remedy open to the respondent Bank is to file a suit. The petition has been resisted by the respondent Bank, contending that the aforesaid facility to the petitioner was sanctioned under the state Sponsored Scheme as the respondent Bank uses to give guarantee fee to Deposit Insurance credit Guarantee Corporation, which is a Central Government Corporation, and give guarantee for the repayment in case the loan or any facility granted by the Bank becomes doubtful either from the borrower or guarantors. The loan in question can be recovered under the provisions of the Recovery of Dues Act.

( 4 ) IN Writ Petition No. 15062 of 1996 the respondent No. 4, Rajendra Prasad Gupta. has taken loan from the respondent Bank. Union Bank of India, for doing this own business, for which the petitioner stood guarantor. The said loan is a commercial loan, the petitioner contends, granted under Cash Credit Limit Scheme, and not under any State Sponsored Scheme. Apart from the contention that the amount in question cannot be recovered under the provisions of the Recovery of Dues Act. the respondent No. 4 Rajendra Prasad Gupta, is the original borrower of the loan and so the amount should be realised from him and not from the petitioner. In spite of several opportunities granted to the opposite party, no counter-affidavit has been filed in the case.

( 5 ) IN Writ Petition No. 32422 of 1996 the petitioner M/s. Manoj Kumar and Vinod Kumar also took loan from the respondent Union Bank of India. Jaunpur. under Cash Credit Account, initially, the credit limit was rupees one lac, which was subsequently enhanced to rupees five lacs. The loan being a commercial loan, not advanced to the petitioner under any Slate sponsored Scheme, and further, the agreement entered into between the parties not empowering the respondent Bank to recover the amount in question as arrears of land revenue, the pelitioner contends, the impugned amount cannot be recovered under the provisions of Seclion 3 of the recovery of Dues Act. The defence put forward by the respondent Bank is that the loan was advanced under the Priority Sector, sponsored by the Central Government under retail trade of the Weak Small Business Scheme, initially, on 1st August, 1994. The amount can be recovered under the provisions of the Recovery of Dues Act. Further, the petitioner apprehending failure has also filed civil suit, which is pending in civil court, Jaunpur.

( 6 ) IN Writ Petition No. 621 of 1997 the petitioner M/s. Meera Carpets has borrowed loan under packing Credit Limit Scheme from the respondent Bank, Punjab National Bank, Bhadohi. The loan being commercial loan, the petitione