Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Pandey learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner took a loan from the Allahabad Bank for purchase of a tractor. It is stated by the petitioners Counsel that this loan was taken in the year 1999 and was repayable in instalments over a period of nine years. It appears that the petitioner defaulted. The Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the citation issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar and the recovery proceedings and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed having taken the loan. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition he has expressed his grievance that compound interest is being charged, which the Bank could not. The petitioners contention is that the recovery certificate ought to have been sent to the Up- Ziladhikari and not to the Collector and further that the prescribed authority alone could pass an order for recovery under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitione