IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29003 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABY ZACHARIA , S/O. ZACHARIA, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MATTAKKARA P.O., AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, MATTAKKARA BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, STATEBANK OF TRAVANCORE, MATTAKKARA, MATTAKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAMI,WHO IS APPOINTED AS THE NODAL OFFICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AFFARIS OF AGRICULTURAL DEBTS RELIEFS PROJECT 2008 IN RESPECTO OF REGION-2. BY SC SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).29003/2009 ....................... Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to treat the loan availed of by the petitioner as an Agricultural loan and extend the benefit of Ext.P2, the “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008”. 2. According to the petitioner, he availed of an Agricultural loan for cultivation of vanilla plants. It is stated that default was committed for reasons beyond his control and at that stage, Ext.P2 Scheme was announced. He claimed the benefit of Ext.P2 Scheme treating himself as a small farmer. However, waiver of the entire loan was denied by the Bank on the ground that it is a commercial loan. Petitioner contends that what he applied and availed of was only an agricultural term loan and not any other type of loan. According to him, being a small farmer, he is entitled to be given the benefit of Ext.P2, by waiving the total liability. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed with the prayers mentioned above. W.P.(C).29003 2 3. Respondents 1 and 2 have a filed detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations against them. According to them, the petitioner applied for loan as per Ext.R1(a). According to them, in the application itself it is stated that the loan was not availed for vanilla cultivation as alleged by him and that the loan was availed for land development and repair of house. It is stated that such a loan can be categorized only as Investment loan and that the maximum waiver the petitioner was entitled to was Rs.47,096/-, which benefit has already been given to him. 4. As already seen, the case of the petitioner is that he applied and availed of an Agricultural Term loan. Ext.R1(a) is the application made by the petitioner. The purpose of the loan initially written in Ext.R1(a) was poultry farming. This is seen to have been corrected and land maintenance and development and repair of house are the purposes indicated in Ext.R1(a). 5. Going by Ext.P2 Scheme, the land development will come under clause 3.3 and as per this clause, a loan availed for this purpose is an 'Investment Loan'. Even if the original purpose W.P.(C).29003 3 viz., the poultry, is taken as the purpose of the loan, that again comes under clause 3.3(b) which also is an 'Investment Loan'. Therefore going by the purposes mentioned in the application, petitioner's loan can only be an Investment Loan. If so, the maximum benefit that he is eligible has already been given by the Bank. 6. In the light of Ext.R1(a), I do not find any substance in the allegations in the writ petition that the loan was availed for vanilla cultivation and that the Bank unilaterally made alterations in the loan application. 7. In the result, as the petitioner has already been given the maximum admissible benefit, I do not find any merit in the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs