IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22021 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SAJEEVAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PARAKALAM, TATTAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NABARD, PONNIAM ROAD, P.B.NO.5613, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695039, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 4. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 502 P.O.TATTAMANGALAM - 678 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 502 P.O.TATTAMANGALAM - 678 102, 6. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG MR.K.RAMESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22021 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan from the 4th respondent. Default was committed, and subsequently, the amount has been paid, and the liability also has been settled. It was subsequent to that Ext.P1, the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was announced by the Government of India. Though the liability has been settled as above, contending the liability incurred by him comes within the parameters laid down in Ext.P1 Scheme and therefore the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of the Scheme, he made an application. That was rejected by Ext.P2 order passed by the 5th respondent stating that the liability does not come within the scope of Ext.P1. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 and seeking an order requiring the respondents to extent him the benefit of Ext.P1. 2. It may be true that the loan availed of by the petitioner is an agricultural or other loan provided under Ext.P1. However, the WP(C) No.22021/2009 -2- scheme only provides for waiver of liabilities, and for that liability should be outstanding. In this case, as already seen, the liability has been settled. The Scheme does not provide for reopening of settled liability and refunding what has already been paid. Therefore, Ext.P2 is only to be upheld and the writ petition is only to be dismissed, and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg