IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19473 of 2014

======================================================

Kishori Chaudhary s/o Late Suryadeo Chaudhary, r/o Village Birna

Lakhanson, P.O. Birna Lakhanson, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.Chairman-cum-executive Director Union Bank of India, Central Office

Mumbai.

2.General Manager, Union Bank of India office Kolkatta.

3.Branch Manager, Union Bank of India Branch Yadav Chowk Vaishali,

Hazipur.

.... .... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Dayal, Adv

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aditya Sharan, Adv

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

2

18-11-2014

Heard learned counsel for the parties as with

regard to the following reliefs, prayed in this writ

application:-

<For issuance of writ of Mandamus directing

the respondents to treat the petitioner agricultural loan

under the debt waiving scheme and loan relief scheme

2008 launched by the Ministry of Finance, Govt of

India. This scheme was applicable for all the farmer

who have taken agricultural loan and due between

31.03.1997 to 31.03.2007.

For direction to the Respondents to wave the

petitioner agricultural loan who has taken for purchase

of tractor for agricultural purpose only and or for any

other relief(s) for which the petitioner may be found

entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.=

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner basically

concentrating on a circular of the Government of India

Patna High Court CWJC No.19473 of 2014 (2) dt.18-11-2014

2

as contained in Annexure-4, has submitted that in view

of the aforementioned circular of the Government of

India, the Union Bank of India hereinafter referred to as

the Bank would be under bounden duty to grant waiver

on the ground of agricultural loan taken by the

petitioner. He has also submitted that in fact the

petitioner9s Tractor has already been sold by the Bank

and yet the petitioner is being subjected to harassing

modes adopted by the Bank for realization of the

amount.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank on

the other hand has submitted that the loan in question

given to the petitioner, first of all is not an agricultural

loan but commercial loan. To that extent, he relies on the

reply notice sent by the petitioner himself under Section-

80

C.P.C.

He

has

further explained

that

the

aforementioned circular of Central Government which

has been relied by the petitioner will not be applicable in

his case and therefore, the petitioner will be only

Patna High Court CWJC No.19473 of 2014 (2) dt.18-11-2014

3

required to pay the loan amount as per the terms and

conditions of the agreement executed by him at the time

of sanction/grant of loan.

4. First of all, this Court would go into the basic

issue as with regard to enforceability of a circular in writ

petition. The circular issued by the Government of India

to the Banks by way of execution instruction being not

statutory in force cannot be made basis fro issuing any

direction by this Court. As a matter of fact, nothing has

been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the

circular in question has a binding force.

5. That apart the petitioner has not even enclosed

the circular or enclosures thereof as a whole because

Annexure-4 produced by the petitioner begins with

8Annexure to HO circular 126/2008 dt. 24.05.20089. To

which document, this annexure is not even at least

referred in the averment made in the writ application.

Added to it, even that annexure-4 is in truncated form

from page 3 to page 6, though it appears that the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.19473 of 2014 (2) dt.18-11-2014

4

document was running into many other pages. It is,

there