[2025:RJ-JP:4920] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15433/2009 Hari Singh S/o Shri Pyor Singh, R/o Village Basai, Tehsil Roopbas, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Punjab National Bank, Branch Rudawal, Distt. Bharatpur Through Its Branch Manager. 2. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.L. Meena on behalf of Mr. Ajay Agarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 04/02/2025 Under challenge in the writ petition is the notice dated 22.07.2009 issued by the respondent-Punjab National Bank directing the petitioner to repay the balance loan amount. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent-bank extended the petitioner a loan of Rs.3,27,000/- for purchasing a tractor and on his failure to repay the loan amount, the subject notice was issued to him. The only contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the validity of the aforesaid notice is that since the Central Government has waived the agricultural loan granted to the farmers, it is required to be quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:4920] (2 of 2) [CW-15433/2009] Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of the reply filed by them and the documents appended therewith, submits that the complete loan amount was not waived rather, certain benefits were extended to the small farmers and the petitioner belonging to the category of the ‘small farmer’, was extended the benefit as is apparent from the statement of account filed by the petitioner himself along with the memo of writ petition as Annexure-5. He submits that the amount raised vide notice dated 22.07.2009 is the remaining amount after extending the benefit under the scheme. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the petitioner, being a small farmer, has been extended benefit as admissible under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and the demand raised vide notice impugned 22.07.2009 represents the balance of outstanding amount after adjusting the benefit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his submission that the entire loan amount deserved to be waived under the Scheme- 2008. In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J MAHIMA/66