IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31037 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SIJO KURIAN,NELLUVELIL HOUSE, THALANADU.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ALICE KURIAN,NELLUVELIL HOUSE, THALANADU.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. N.T.GEORGE,NELLUVELI HOUSE, THALANADU.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. N.T.SEBASTIAN,NELLUVELI HOUSE, THALANADU.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL,PALAI. 2. THE NODEL OFFICER,TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,TEEKOY.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TEEKOY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK,TEEKOY.PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM R3 BY ADVS.MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL, MR.T.V.VINU. MR.BINU PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31037/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAVER AND DEBT RELIEF'S SCHEME 2008 DTD. 23.5.09. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30.5.09 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P2(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATIONS DTD. 30.5.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P2(b):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30.5.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P2(c):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 30.5.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16.7.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P3(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.7.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITION. P3(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.7.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P3(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17.7.09 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25.7.09 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4(a):- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25.7.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4(b):- COPY OF THE PETTIION DT. 25.7.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4(c):- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 25.7.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER. P5(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. W.P.(C) NO.31037/2009 P5(b):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER. P5(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.7.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.10.08 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 16.7.09 IN WPC. NO.20030/09. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.8.09 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P9(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P9(b):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P9(c):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.9.09 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER NO.1. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 1.12.05 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31037 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners availed agricultural loans from the third respondent bank under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme. The sum of Rs.2,00,000/= each was sanctioned and disbursed to petitioners 1 and 2 as loan on 21.6.2006. A like sum was sanctioned and disbursed to the third petitioner as loan on 25.10.2005. A sum of Rs.1,75,000/= was sanctioned and disbursed as loan to the fourth petitioner on 1.12.2005. The loan was to be repaid within three years. The petitioners do not repay any part of the loan. While matters stood thus, the Government of India introduced the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, a copy of which is Ext.P1. The petitioners thereupon moved the third respondent bank claiming the benefit of the said scheme. The third respondent bank entertained the petitioners' application and included their names also in the list of 121 persons who according to the bank were eligible for the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It is stated that the Unit Inspectors after verification of the documents sanctioned the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme only to 41 persons. That benefit of Ext.P1 scheme was thereupon extended to the said 41 persons and the WP(C).No.31037/2009 2 bank was also reimbursed the benefits given to the said 41 persons. When the petitioners were not given the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme, they moved the Secretary of the bank in terms of paragraph 10(2) of Ext.P1 scheme. The Secretary of the bank who is the grievance redressal officer under Ext.P1 scheme thereupon sent Ext.P5 series of letters to the petitioners informing them that they were not given the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme for the reason that when they availed the loans, tax receipts and patta chits relating to their lands were not produced. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed Ext.P9 series of representations before the first respondent seeking his interference in the matter. This writ petition was thereafter filed inter alia seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P9 to P9(c) representations and to take decision thereon. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein it is stated that though the names of the petitioners were also included in the list prepared by the bank, the Unit Inspectors refused to approve the claims of 80 persons including the petitioners on the ground that the loan amount had not been utilised for the purpose for which the loans were advanced. It is stated that the names of the petitioners were therefore excluded from the final list of persons eligible for the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme. The third WP(C).No.31037/2009 3 respondent has stated that the bank cannot extend the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme to the petitioners as otherwise the bank will be put to serious loss. It is stated that if the bank extends the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme to the petitioners, the NABARD who is nodel agency for implementation of Ext.P1 scheme will not reimburse to the bank, the amount of benefit extended to the petitioners. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. A reading of Ext.P5 series of letters indicates that claim of the petitioners for the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme was rejected on the ground that when they availed the loan, they had not produced patta chits and tax receipts in respect of their lands. The stand taken by the third respondent bank in the counter affidavit is different. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioners have not utilised the loan amount for the purpose for which the loan was disbursed and therefore, the Unit Inspectors did not approve the inclusion of their names in the list of persons eligible for the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme. In my opinion, in the light of the conflicting stand taken by the third respondent bank in Ext.P5 series of letters and in the counter affidavit, the first respondent should enquire into the matter and take an appropriate decision after notice to and affording the petitioners and the third respondent a reasonable WP(C).No.31037/2009 4 opportunity of being heard. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the grievance voiced by the petitioners in Exts.P9 to P9(c) representations and take decision thereon as regards the entitlement of the petitioners for the benefit of Ext.P1 scheme after notice to and affording the petitioners and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It will be open to the petitioners to supplement their representations by filing additional representations along with the documents which they choose to rely on. The first respondent shall pass final orders in the matter expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment before him. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS