IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5317 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- SURENDRAN.K.K, S/O.LATE K.S.KAMADEVAN, KANNALATH HOUSE,ATHIKUZHI,CHITTUR.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.SAJAN VARGHEESE .K, MR.LIJU. M.P. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.18,CHITTUR-678101.PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.18, CHITTUR-678101,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD. 4. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE CHAIRMAN,NABARD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,NEW DELHI. R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR, R6 BY ADV. SMT.LALIZA. T.Y., C.G.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010,ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.5359/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.5317 & 5359 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT These writ petitions are considered together for the reason that the issues raised therein are identical. 2. The petitioners in both these writ petitions are agriculturists who had availed of agricultural loans from the first respondent. The repayment of the loans are remaining in default and the bank has initiated coercive action against the petitioners for recovery of the loan amount. 3. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, which has been produced as Ext.P3 and P4 respectively in WP(C)Nos. 5317 and 5359 of 2010. According to the petitioners, since they are agriculturists, they are entitled to the concessions in the Scheme. However, the bank rejected their claims on the ground that they had decided to limit the benefit of the Scheme to only agricultural loans below 7% interest. Since the action of the bank in limiting the benefits Wpc 5317/2010 2 of the Scheme to certain persons alone was unsustainable, the petitioners have approached the Grievance Redressal Officer under Clause 10.2 of the Scheme. By identical orders, evidenced by Ext.P7 in WP(C)5317 of 2010 and Ext.P6 in WP(C)5359 of 2010, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected. The said orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 4. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that the orders under challenge are not issued in accordance with the Scheme. 5. Though the Scheme has conferred the benefits thereof to all agricultural loans, the action of the bank in limiting the benefits therein to only a certain category of agriculturist debtors is uncalled for. In view of the above, Ext.P7 in WP(C)5317 of 2010 and Ext.P6 in WP(C) 5359 of 2010 are set aside. The second respondent Grievance Redressal Officer is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with the stipulations contained in the Scheme and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously. Until such orders are passed, all coercive steps initiated by the bank for Wpc 5317/2010 3 recovery of the amounts due from the petitioners shall be kept in abeyance. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk