IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33302 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KANNAPURAM SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD., KANNAPURAM PO.CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MANIYAMPARA BALAKRISHNAN, MANIYAMPARA HOUSE, KEEZHARA PO., KANNAPPURAM, KANNUR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33302 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is a co-operative society. It challenges Ext.P10 decision of the State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission. The provision under which that Commission functions and the scope of the authority of that Commission do not extend to granting relief in relation to business loans. It is essentially Farmers' Debt Relief Commission. The impugned order has been passed even without entering a finding on the jurisdictional issue as to whether the beneficiary of that order, viz., the second respondent herein is a farmer. Even in Ext.P10, it is stated that the facility was a business loan. Ext.P10 has been issued stating that the second respondent herein, who is in financial stringencies, belongs to below poverty line and it is a sympathetic case. May be so. But while noticing that debt relief cannot be awarded by the Commission, it had granted the benefit of instalment facility WPC.33302/08 Page numbers which is plainly beyond the jurisdiction of the first respondent. Therefore, the impugned Ext.P10 is quashed. 2.There does not appear to be any serious dispute regarding the fact that the second respondent has made payments and the entire amounts due could also be paid by extending to the second respondent ameliorative considerations. The property was sold in auction, purchased by the petitioner creditor and sale certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner will consider any request of the second respondent for re-conveyance of the property on terms as may be fixed by the petitioner sympathetically. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.3/4.