IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 10466 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER --------------- CHIRAYIL JOHN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, CHAMUNDIKUNNU, RAJAPURAM-VIA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHANGAD BRANCH, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD, P.O.VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG, P.O.KANHANGAD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 10466 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved of recovery proceedings initiated and pursued by the respondent Bank invoking the machinery under the Revenue Recovery Act for realisation of the amount stated as due from the petitioner under a loan transaction . The case of the petitioner as given in Ground 'B' is that the petitioner is eligible to have waiver under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and as per Ext. P2 letter dated 21.08.2008 issued by the first respondent , the eligibility of the petitioner stands admitted. Inspite of this admission, the revenue authorities came to the residence of the petitioner, threatening of coercive steps for realisation of the amount stated as due under Ext. P1 recovery notice dated 05.09.2005, which hence is sought to be intercepted by filing this writ Petition. 2. The respondent Bank has filed a statement explaining the position, however conceding that though the petitioner does W.P.(C) No. 10466 OF 2010 2 not come within the purview of the 'Scheme 2008', he is eligible for certain reliefs as specified therein. The contention of the Bank as it appears in paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit filed in this regard is as follows: “As per the provisions of the ADWDRS 2008 the loans sanctioned after 01.04.1997 up to 31.12.2007 and which remains unpaid as on 29.02.2008 are eligible for waiver/relief. It is true that the Bank had admitted that the petitioner is eligible for Debt Waiver vide letter dated 21.08.2008 to the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2008 regarding the eligibility of KCC sanctioned in the year 2000. As the waiver is to be provided by absorbing the loss by the Bank by providing notional waiver advising RR authorities there was a procedural delay in implementing the scheme. We confirm that notional waiver has now been provided to him and we had intimated the RR authorities that the petitioner is eligible for waiver to the extent of Rs.35919/- in respect of eligible KCC and only the balance remaining amounting to Rs.36687.60 plus interest from W.P.(C) No. 10466 OF 2010 3 the date of Revenue Recovery Action need be recovered from the petitioner on receipt of the clarifications from the higher authorities. We have intimated the revenue recovery authorities to reduce the amount of claim by Rs.35919/- and pursue the recovery for the remaining amount of 36687.60 plus interest from the date of RR . Though we had requested the petitioner to call on us for settling the matter, he had not turned up till date.” From the above, it is very much clear that the petitioner's loan, having availed in the year 1996, does not come within the purview of '2008 Scheme'. Since the Bank concedes that the petitioner is eligible to get waiver to the extent as specified therein and that the remaining amount is only Rs. 36,687.60/- plus interest and such other expenses, this Court finds that the said liability is to be cleared by the petitioner. 3. However, taking note of the persuasive submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he might be permitted to clear the liability in a phased manner, the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 10466 OF 2010 4 is permitted to clear the due amount by way of three equal monthly installments, the first of which shall be effected on or before 30.07.2010, to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 30th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings, if any, shall be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that if any default is committed by the petitioner in effecting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realisation of the amount in a lump sum, from the stage where it stands now. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk