The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the exclusive jurisdiction of tribunals, highlighting the primacy of laws made by Parliament.

K.M. Joseph, C.J.

Appellant is the writ petitioner. Appellant availed a loan for the purpose of opening a dairy farm and purchase of milk cattle in order to open this dairy farm. Consequent upon there being default in repayment of the loan, proceedings were initiated by the bank against the appellant for recovery of the amount outstanding. Before the learned Single Judge, we notice from the judgment, the argument of the appellant was that the loan was a commercial term loan and, therefore, it could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

2. On the other hand, the respondent Bank took shelter under the provision of Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh (Uttarakhand) Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The said provision reads as follows:

“11.A. Recovery in the case of personal security. – (1) Where any amount of financial assistance is granted by a bank to an agriculturist and the agriculturist fails to pay the amount together with interest on the due date, then without prejudice to the provisions of Section 10-B and 11, the local principal officer of the bank by whatever name called may forward to the Collector a certificate in the manner prescribed specifying the amount due from the agriculturist.

(2) The certificate referred to in subsection (1) may be forwarded to the Collector within three years from the date when the amount specified in the certificate fell due.

(3) On receipt of the certificate, the Collector shall proceed to recover the agriculturist the amount specified therein together with expenses of recovery as arrears of land revenue, and the amount due to the bank shall be paid after deducting the expenses of recovery and satisfying any Government dues or other prior charges, if any.

Explanation. – For the purposes of this section, the expression “Collector” means the Collector of the district in which the agriculturist ordinarily resides or carries on the activities referred to in clause (a) of Section 2 or where any movable or immovable property of the agriculturist is situate, and includes any officer, authorised by him in that behalf.”

3. The learned Single Judge appears to have upheld the contention of the respondent-Bank that the recovery initiated could be sustained under Section 11.A. As regards the second argument of the appellant, namely, that the charge has not been created is concerned; it was found that it could not stand as per the record. The learned Single Judge found merit in the contention of the respondent-Bank that Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition would show that the cattle, which were immovable property, were hypothecated to the Bank and such a charge has also been created against other immovable property. It was found that the loan taken by the appellant is covered by the Uttar Pradesh (Uttarakhand) Agricultural Credit Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). It is found that there is no anomaly and, therefore, the writ petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

4. We heard Mr. Neerag Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank and also Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

5. In the Appeal, the only argument, which is raised and pressed before us, is that having regard to enactment of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the “1993 Act”) by the Parliament, the recovery under the Act cannot be sustained. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 455. In the said judgment, the Court was dealing with the following facts:

A Certificate was issued under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The Hon’ble Apex Court referred to Section 34 of the 1993 Act. It reads as fo