IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18262 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 Charandeep Singh. -----Petitioner Vs. UOI and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 2.7.2008 Annexure P-5. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he took a loan of Rs.3 lac on 3.2.2000 and executed cash credit agreement (Annexure P-2) and mortgage deed (Annexure P-3). On default in payment, award dated 29.7.2002 was passed against the petitioner, against which, appeal and revision were dismissed on 25.4.2007 and 6.11.2007 respectively. On 23.5.2008, Union of India floated Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (Annexure P-1), which envisaged waiver of loan to small and marginal farmers and giving the benefit of One Time C.W.P. No.18262 of 2008 Settlement scheme to other farmers. The petitioner applied under the said Scheme, but his application was rejected on the ground that he was not covered by the said Scheme. 3. In Annexure P-2, which is Cash Credit Agreement, purpose of loan is described as for repair and purchase of agricultural machinery and equipment, purchase of pesticides etc., consumption purpose and other socio-economic needs from time to time. The relevant extract is as under:- “Whereas at the request of the Borrower the Bank has agreed to advance to the Borrower by way of Cash Credit accommodation for repair and purchase of agricultural machinery and equipment, purchase of pesticides etc. consumption purpose and other socio-economic needs from time to time such sums not at any time to exceed Rs.3,00,000/-.” 4. In the reply, stand taken by respondents No.2 and 3 is that the petitioner himself mentioned his holding to be six acres in the application for loan, and thus, the petitioner was not covered by the definition of small or marginal farmer. It was next submitted that in the application, purpose of loan was not mentioned as agricultural purpose. 5. Once it is clearly mentioned in the agreement (Annexure P-2) that one of the purposes of loan was agricultural purpose i.e. repair and purchase of agricultural machinery, it cannot be said that the loan was not given to the petitioner for agricultural purpose. 5. As regards the extent of holding of the petitioner, assuming the petitioner is not covered by the definition of small or marginal 2 C.W.P. No.18262 of 2008 farmers, even other farmers are eligible for certain benefits i.e. One Time Settlement scheme. 6. In view of above, we allow this petition and quash letter dated 2.7.2008 (Annexure P-5) and direct respondent No.2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 18, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3