IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2874 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- POTHUJANA AGRICULTURAL EXPORT ZONE COMMERCIAL SAMITHI, ARAYOOR,REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SHERIN MONY, CHENGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN BANK, COCHIN. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, PARASSALA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 SC FOR INDIAN BANK SRI. EASWARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2874 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The claim of the petitioner is fr the benefit of Ext.P3, the Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The grievance was that Ext.P4 application was made to the first respondent for the benefit of Ext.P3 and that the same was not responded. In view of the above the writ petition was adjourned with a direction to he standing counsel for the respondent to obtain instruction. According to the standing counsel, petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of Ext.P2 and that Ext.P4 application made by them was considered and they were informed by letter dated 22.7.2008 that they are ineligible for the benefit of Ext.P3. The counsel for the respondents points out that in terms of clause 4.2(b) of Ext.P3, agricultural finance to corporates, partnership firms, societies other WP(c).No.2874/09 /2/ than cooperative credit institutions(referred to in para 3,4) and any other similar institution shall not be included among the eligible categories. Co-operative credit institution is also defined in clause 3.4. Admittedly the society consists of individuals who are agriculturists. In view of the above provisions of the scheme, a society like the petitioner stands excluded. If that be so, the stand taken by the Bank that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.2874/09 /2/