IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27319 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P.V.ANTONY, S/O. VAREETH, PYNADATH HOUSE, EDAKKUNNU, PADUVAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 582. 2. CICILY ANTONY, W/O. P.V.ANTONY, -DO- -DO- 3. RASHMI ANTONY, D/O. P.V.ANTONY, -DO- -DO- 4. DEEPTHY ANTONY, D/O. P.V.ANTONY, -DO- -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, O/O REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, HEAD OFFICE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030. 3. THE KARUKUTTY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., REG.NO.E.63, PANTHACKAL, PADUVAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. vk WP(C).No. 27319 of 2010(L) --------------------------------- 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALWAYE, PIN-683 101. 5. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK BUILDING, KOCHI-16. 6. THE NABARD, REP. BY THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, NABARD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 025. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN , SC R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 27319 of 2010(L) ----------------------------------- APPENDIX ------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBIS --------------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDET, DATED 28.4.2004. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 28.4.2004. EXT.P3. COPY OF APPLICATION OF 1ST PETITINER DATED 14.6.2006. EXT.P4. COPY OF APPLICATION OF 2ND PEITIONER DATED 14.6.2006. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.7.2008 PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.9.2008. EXT.P8. COPY OF LETTER DATED 30.7.2009 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMPLAINTS REDRESSAL AUTHORITY F THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER BY THE 1ST PETITIONER, DATED 25.8.2009. EXT.P10 . COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 2.11.2009, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT, DATED 25.11.2009 EXT.P12. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.3.2010, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1T PETITIONER. EXT.P13. COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DATED 5.8.2008 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY VK RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------- 1. EXT.R3(A). CIRCULAR AND INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE FINANCING BANK. EXT.R3(B). COPY OF THE LOAN SANCTIONING ORDER ISSUED BY THE FINANCIAL BANK. EXT.R3(C). COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE PETITINERS. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 27319 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Challenge is against Exts.P7, P10 and P12 orders issued by respondents. The issue pertains to refusal of claim for waiver/debt relief, with respect to loans availed by the petitioners from the 3rd respondent Bank, under Ext.P5 scheme, the Agricultural Debt Waiver/Relief Scheme 2008, introduced by the Central Government. 2. With respect to 4 loans availed by the petitioners, requests were made to the 3rd respondent to allow waiver to the possible extent, in view of Ext.P5 scheme. Since the requests were not considered the petitioners have approached the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent issued Ext.P7 reply to the 1st petitioner. It is stated that in a report received from the 3rd respondent it was informed that, since the petitioners have not produced Basic Tax Receipts they were not included in the Audit list of Agricultural loans for the year 2004-05 and hence they are not entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5 Scheme. But the petitioners WPC.27319/2010 2 were advised to approach the redressal officer of the 3rd respondent society designated under the provisions of the scheme. Eventhough the petitioners submitted Exts.P8 and P9 representations before the redressal officer, the 3rd respondent informed that their requests cannot be considered for the very same reasons mentioned in Ext.P7. Petitioners thereupon submitted a further representation before the 5th respondent, to which Ext.P12 reply was issued by the 4th respondent reiterating that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered for inclusion under the Scheme, because no agricultural loan was sanctioned from the 3rd respondent Bank, but the loans were sanctioned only from 'own funds' of the 3rd respondent as an ordinary loan. 3. According to the petitioners, in Exts.P1 & P2 loan applications submitted by petitioners 3 and 4, it is specifically mentioned that it is for the purpose of agricultural and personal needs. Whereas with respect to loans availed by the petitioners 1 and 2, it is contended that it was only renewal of existing agricultural loans, as evidenced from Exts.P3 and P4. It is further contended that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is WPC.27319/2010 3 not true or correct and the loans in question were sanctioned only for agricultural purposes. The denial of the benefit under the scheme was without any proper reason and such a decision is taken by the 3rd respondent in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner, is the contention. It is also contended that the controlling authorities like respondents 4 and 5 have also not looked into the grievance in its proper perspective. It is alleged that respondents 4 and 5 have failed in scrutinizing any of the documents pertaining to sanctioning of the loans in order to ascertain as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5 scheme. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent it is stated that on verification of records such as loan applications and other connected documents including the respective vouchers it was evident that out of 4 loans availed by the petitioners, two were for agricultural and personal purposes and other two loans were only a renewal of the existing loans. It is further stated that, enquiry conducted by the 4th respondent at the 3rd respondent bank revealed that all the loans taken by the WPC.27319/2010 4 petitioners are ordinary loans and hence it is not included in the beneficiary list prepared under the debt relief scheme. 5. In the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent it is contended that, the loans sanctioned to the petitioners are not at all agricultural loans, but only individual loans and the loans were availed only for repayment of the existing debts due to the Bank. It is contended that, for the purpose of granting agricultural loans specific criteria and guidelines are prescribed through circulars of the District Co-operative Bank and the loans in question were not fulfilling any such criteria. Further contention of the 3rd respondent is that, for the year concerned, an advance amount of Rs.15 lakhs alone was sanctioned to the Bank for agricultural loans and that amount was disbursed to 50 persons. The names of the petitioners were not included in the said list of creditors and no agricultural loans were sanctioned to them. The loans in question were sanctioned to the petitioners by virtue of resolution passed by the Managing Committee, on the basis of their applications, in its meeting held on 29.4.2004 and the loans sanctioned were only ordinary loans with 13% WPC.27319/2010 5 interest charged thereon. 6. Going by terms of Ext.P5 scheme it is evident that the scheme will cover only direct agricultural loans extended to middle and small farmers and other farmers. The definition regarding 'Direct Agricultural Loans' include short term production loans and investment loans etc. . However it is evident that there exist a dispute as to whether the loans sanctioned to the petitioners are agricultural loans or not. The parties in this writ petition are on dispute on the said factual aspect. Based on the loan applications submitted by the petitioners they claim that the stand taken by the 3rd respondent is not true and correct. Being a disputed question of fact, it may not be possible for this court to resolve the issue in this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent had pointed out that if the petitioners have any grievance regarding the decision taken in this regard, they can raise a dispute before the appropriate authority as contemplated under section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petitioners need be relegated to the appropriate WPC.27319/2010 6 authority to seek such remedy, if they are so advised. 7. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioners to invoke remedy as provided under section 69 of the Kerala C- operative Societies Act. Needless to say that if the petitioners raise any dispute as above, the same shall be considered and decided by the appropriate authority, untramelled by any of the observations contained hereinabove. C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE pmn/ WPC.27319/2010 7