1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:
a) By issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, the notice 2.3.2010 Annexure-1 and the notice dated 17.1.2011 Annexure-3 passed by the respondents be quashed and set-aside.
b) By issuance of an appropriate writ or direction, the respondent No. 1 be directed to exempt the petitioner from recovering the amount of illegal interest of Rs. 8,63,000/- against the loan of Rs. 5,76,000/- which has been calculated @ 13.5% per annum with compounded interest.
c) That the compound interest of 13.5% per annum which is being charged by the bank from the petitioner be converted into simple interest of 6% per annum.
d) The cost of writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that in the year 2006-07, the petitioner took loan of Rs. 5,03,000/- and Rs. 73,000/- from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Branch Anta, District Baran for purchasing a tractor and for digging a tube-well. Since the petitioner failed to repay the loan amount, notice dated 2.3.2010 was issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent Bank filed an application before the SDO, Anta, District Baran, who in-turn, issued the notice dated 17.1.2011 under Section 4 of Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,39,000/-, failing which petitioner's property had been directed to be attached and auctioned by way of sale.
3. It is further noticed that albeit the matter is still sub-judice before the Sub Divisional Officer, Anta, but by way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court imploring the Court to quash and set-aside the notices dated 2.3.2010 and 17.1.2011.
4. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that in plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the well settled principle of law that ordinarily relief under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India is not available, if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.
5. In the case of United Bank of India Versus Satyawati Tondon and others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1).
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court further deprecated the practice of High Courts granting stay on the recovery of revenue in the following terms:
Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.
7. To curb it, the Hon'ble Apex Court reminded the High Courts in the following words
46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters.
8. In the latest judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Kanhaiya Lal Sachdev and others Versus State of Maharashtra and others : (2011) 2 SCC 782), not only the settled principle was upheld but was further strengthened as the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeals with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/-.
9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that instead of availing the alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It has consistently been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the alternative efficacious statutory remedy is already available to the aggrieved person. In view of afore-stated pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petition, to my firm view, is not at all maintainable and deserves to be dismissed in limner.
10. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition being bereft of any substance/merit stands dismissed.