JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ.
1. The petitioner. Mahendra Pal. received a loan of Rs. 4.000 on 14 December, 1985 from Prathama Bank, Branch Chandupura Seekampur, Tehsil Swar, district Rampur. The petitioner says that the loan was provided under a self-Employment Scheme for purchasing a Tanga-Ghoda, that is a hackney carriage. The petitioner did not return the loan at any stage nor the petitioner mentions in the writ petition that he paid a single paisa to discharge the loan. It is accepted that when the loan was taken, it was upon the faith that it would be discharged. Twelve years after the loan was taken, finding that the petitioner would not discharge it, the respondents took out proceedings to recover the loan as a public debt. On 2 June, 1997. a recovery certificate was issued requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 21.986 plus other charges. The petitioner did not respond on this recovery certificate. Instead, he filed an application before the District Magistrate for quashing the recovery certificate. The District Magistrate declined to interfere with the recovery proceedings and by his order dated 21 August. 1998 rejected the request of the petitioner seeking waiver of the loan. This writ petition has been .filed to challenge the order of the District Magistrate declining to exempt the petitioner from discharging the loan.
2. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The Court is not inclined to issue a writ on this writ petition. When a loan is granted, it is on the faith that those who receive loans will discharge it. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that when the loan was granted, there was no Indication that in default the amount would be realised as a public debt by distress or attachment.
4. The petitioner received a loan on faith and trust that the loan would facilitate his self-employment and as he generates his income from business, he would return the amount. The contention that the petitioner is entitled to an exemption or immunity to escape from repayment of the loan is misconceived. The petitioner relied on a government scheme of 1990, to submit that he is entitled to exemption from the loan. At the time when the petitioner was granted loan, the scheme was not in existence. The petitioner could not foresee the future that he would be advanced a loan and retain it as a loan but would not have to return it.
5. The Court is not impressed by the submissions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner and the Court cannot certify that the petitioner is not liable to return the amount which he had taken as a loan, [f the Courts were to certify that the petitioner is not liable to return such a loan, this will be contributing to the deficit financing of the nation's planned economy by writing off public debts. This is politics. There cannot be a system that thousands of citizens will apply to receive loans on the faith that the terms of repayment will be adhered to, but later claim Immunity from discharging their debts. The Court has already held in re: M/s. Lal and Kumar and others v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1998 All 156, that in such fiscal matters of planning, it would not interfere.
6. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion that the pending loan be waived.
7. The writ petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.