IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19988 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- THE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q-390, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 645. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. C.P.RAVINDRAN NAIR, CHITOOR VEEDU, ATTACHAKKAL P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 692. 3. P.RAMANIAMMA, CHITOOR VEEDU, ATTACHAKKAL P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 692. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 545 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.19988/2010 & 545/2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Issues raised in these writ petitions are connected and therefore these cases are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Petitioner in WP)).No.545/2011 availed of three loans from the Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Petitioner in WP(c).No.19988/2010. One of the controversy in this writ petition is regarding the loan No. LFS 944 for an amount of ` 7,50,000/- sanctioned for the purpose of starting a hollow bricks manufacturing unit. Apart from this, two other loans were also availed of. Default was committed in respect of all the three loans. Meantime the Central Government introduced the Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The aforesaid bank extended the benefit of the scheme in respect of the latter two loans and waiver as admissible under the scheme was given. 3. However, petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 approached the Kerala State Farmers Debt Relief Commission claiming waiver WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 2 : in respect of loan No. LFS 944 and also the other two loans. The commission passed order dated 7.8.2008 holding that the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 is eligible for the benefit of the scheme and on that basis the liability was ordered to be waived completely. Long thereafter the bank filed application dated 20.10.2008 seeking review of the aforesaid order invoking the power of the Commission under Rule 20 of the Debt Relief Commission Rules. By order dated 11.8.2010, the Commission allowed the application and cancelled the benefit that was given in respect of the loan LFS 944. 4. Bank has filed W.P(c).No.19988/2010 challenging the order dated 7.8.2008 where as the loanee has filed WP(c). No.545/2011 challenging the order passed by the Commission allowing the review petition filed by the Bank. 5. As far as the order dated 11.8.2010 allowing the review petition is concerned the ground urged is that, the review has been filed beyond the time provided in Rule 20 and that in the absence of any power conferred to the Commission, it could not have entertained a belated application. Rule 20 provides for filing of a petition for review and the time specified for filing such WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 3 : application is 60 days. Admittedly, this application is filed beyond the time specified and the Rules do not confer any power on the Commission to condone delay. If that be so, the order dated 11.8.2010 allowing the review application filed by the Bank is liable to be set aside and I do so. 6. In so far as WP(c).No.19988/2010 filed by the Bank is concerned, if the issue raised by the Bank is that Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 is inapplicable to loan LFS 944. The scheme provides for waiver in respect of the direct agricultural loans, short term production loan and investment loans which expression are defined in clause 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the scheme. A perusal of these provisions show that the scheme shall apply only in respect of the loans which are availed of for agricultural purposes or for activities allied to agricultural purposes. In this case admittedly loan No. LFS 944 was availed of by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 for starting a hollow brick manufacture unit. The purpose of the loan has no connection whatsoever with agriculture and therefore it is outside the 2008 scheme. If so Commission could not have extended the benefit of the scheme in so far as the aforesaid loan is concerned. In that WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 4 : view of the matter the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Commission to the extent it concerns loan No.LFS 944 availed of by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011 from the Primary Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., is liable to be set aside and I do so. 7. The other contention raised by the petitioner is in relation to the loan Nos. OL 8742 in respect of which Rs.1 lakh was availed of and LDS.1890 in respect of which Rs.2 lakhs was availed of by the petitioner in WP(c).No.545/2011. These loans were for a period of 10 years and according to the Bank, as per clause 4.3 of the 2008 scheme the loanee was entitled to debt waiver of the outstanding amount of ` 1,53,408/- only. It is contended that by Ext.P2 in WP(c).No.19988/2010 the aforesaid waiver was already given and therefore the Commission could not have ordered complete waiver. 8. Clause 4.1(a)(i)of the scheme provides that the amount eligible for debt waiver, shall comprise of in the case of a short term production loan, the amount of such loan together with interest disbursed up to March 31st, 2007 and overdue as on December 31st, 2007 and remaining unpaid until February 29th, WPC.No. 19988/2010 & anor. 5 : 2008. Therefore, in the case of loans such as those availed of by he loanee herein, only such amounts that are over due as on 31.12.2007 and remaining unpaid as on 29.2.2008 is liable to be waived. It is seen from Ext.P3 order that the amount outstanding as on 31.12.2007 in respect of the above loans have already been waived and therefore the Commission was in error in waiving the loans in its totality. To that extent also order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner deserves to be interfered with and to be quashed and I do so. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/