IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20000 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ VIMALADEVI, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, RAMANEZHUTH HOUSE, PANANGAD AMSOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, P.O.PANANGAD, KODUNGALLUR. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL), KODUNGALLUR. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICERS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KODUNGALLUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, KERALA KARSHAKA KADASWASA COMMISSION, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20000 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that on 5/2/2002, she had availed of a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. Default was committed and ARC NO.4845/05 was filed by the Bank. Award was passed enabling the Bank to realise an amount of Rs.9,94,581/-. 2. Thereupon, the Bank filed EP 8/08 and notice of attachment was issued for recovery of Rs.11,23,307/-. 3. Petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, claiming the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, announced by the Government of India, she filed an application to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) NO.16420/09. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing consideration of her application and also her request not to sell the mortgaged property. 4. Accordingly, the matter was considered and Ext.P3 order has been issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the request made. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that the loan availed of by the petitioner is not an agricultural loan and therefore, she is not WPC 20000/09 :2 : eligible for the benefit of the Central Government Scheme relied on. 5. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the loan availed of by the petitioner was an agricultural loan, which is a condition precedent for claiming the benefit of the Central Government Scheme. In view of this, this Court will not be justified in entertaining the writ petition or granting any relief. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp