IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 35349 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- POULOSE, AGED 70, S/O.KOSSERIYIL PAILI, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, AMBALAPAD DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE AMBALAPAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.759,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, POST KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDITIONAL 4 th RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:- 4. ANNAMMA PAULOSE W/O PAULOSE, KOSSERIYIL, PERA, KUNDUKAD, THRISSUR * ADDITIONAL 4th RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.09.09 IN IA NO.11425/09 R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU TK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35349 of 2008(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1. A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2. A COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 01.08.2008 P3. A COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HIS LAWYER DATED 08.09.2008 P4. A COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR ISSUING EXT. P3 DATED 08.09.2008 P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2008 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a). COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29.03.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(b). COPY OF APPLICATION FOR GAHAN DATED 29.03.2005 R1(c). COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 41/2008 DATED 05.06.2008. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE kkj S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.35349 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist. According to him he had applied for an agricultural loan from the first respondent bank, which is a Co-operative Bank. He committed default in repayment of the loan. He wanted to claim the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme in respect of his loan. But he was denied that benefit on the ground that he has used the loan not for agricultural operations, but for constructing a house. According to the petitioner, that is not correct. He had in fact used the loan for agricultural purpose only. Therefore, the petitioner would submit that the decision of the first respondent Bank, that the petitioner used the loan for purpose other than the purpose for which the loan was sanctioned to the petitioner, is unsustainable. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner is entitled to have his name included in the list of persons eligible for the agricultural debt waiver scheme in respect of the loan taken by him W.P.(C)No.35349 of 2008 2 from the first respondent. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs. “(i) Call for the records leading to Ext P2 and may be pleased to quash the same. (ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext P3 and may be pleased to include the name of the petitioner in the scheme for granting the benefits under the Agricultural Debt Relief Waiver scheme, in the interest of the justice.” I have heard both the parties. For giving the relief to the petitioner, I will have to necessarily answer the question as to whether, the petitioner has used the loan for the purpose for which the loan was given to him. That cannot be done without taking evidence, which this Court will not ordinarily do in a writ petition. I am not satisfied that this is a case where this Court should take evidence, especially since the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an application under Section 69 of Kerala State Co- operative Societies Act, or before the Debt Relief Commission, in which petitioner can certainly adduce any W.P.(C)No.35349 of 2008 3 evidence in support of his contention. Therefore without prejudice such rights of the petitioner, this writ petition is dispose of. S.SIRIJAGAN JUDGE kkj