IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19339 of 2006(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: THE SULTHANBATHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.LL 11, SULTHANBATHERY P.O., REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), WAYANAD, KALPETTA. 3. THE DISTRICT CO-OEPRATIVE BANK LTD., WAYANAD, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 19339/06 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED ON 3.8.04 EXT. P2THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT C-OP. BANK ON 7.9.04 EXT. P3THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(MS) 49/2005/REVENUE DT. 17.2.05 EXT. P4THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.11 DT. 3.3.05 EXT. P5THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER OF DISTRICT6 CO-OP. BANK DT. 9.3.05 EXT. P6THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP 3268/04 DT. 26.7.05 EXT. P7THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRP/3268/04 DT. 8.5.06 /TRUE COPY/ P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19339 of 2006 B ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner Co-operative Bank has approached this Court with a specific prayer to direct respondents 2 and 3 to release the balance amount of `.1,81,33,703/- (towards reimbursement and the interest written off in connection with the relief granted to small agricultural debtors in Wayanad District) to the petitioner Bank forthwith. 2. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that, by virtue of the policy declared by the Government for providing benefit to the agricultural farmers, various schemes were formulated and one of them is by way of 'interest waiver'; to be reimbursed by the Government. It is stated that even though the petitioner Bank had advanced amounts to the members of the Bank, who are eligible to get the benefit, the reimbursement is not fully satisfied by the respondents, which made the petitioner to approach this Court. It is contended that, though full payments have been effected to similarly situated Co-operative Banks, petitioner is still to get the entire amount and hence the writ petition for the balance amount as aforesaid. 3. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 6.10.2006, third respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit WPC 19339/06 2 as to the actual facts and figures. Accordingly, a counter affidavit dated 11.11.2006 has been filed, mainly pointing out that the said respondent is not a necessary party to the writ petition for the reason that Wayanad District Co-operative Bank, being the Central Co- operative Bank among co-operatives in the District, has only a liaison work between the Registrar of Co-operative Societies at the State level and the Primary Co-operative Banks at the bottom level. First respondent/Government had filed a counter affidavit stating that the benefit was sought to be extended to the eligible persons in Wayanad District, as part of the scheme formulated in this regard, by way of relief measure, pursuant to the steps taken by the Government by introducing the Kerala Agricultural Debtors (Temporary Relief) Act, 2001. The relief measures were under the different schemes, such as moratorium on repayment of agricultural loans, reimbursement of interest on agricultural loans waived by the Co-operative Banks, etc. The factual position as to the eligibility of the petitioner and the amount disbursed by the petitioner has been clearly given in paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit, which reads as follows: “It is submitted that so fact an amount of `.62,56,28,821/- (Rupees Sixty two crores fifty six lakhs twenty eight thousand eight hundred and twenty one only) has been allotted to Wayand District for meeting the interest relief claim under the above scheme and the whole amount has been sanctioned to 32 Co- operative Societies of Wayanad District WPC 19339/06 3 including that of the petitioner Bank for meeting he claim up to 31.3.2006 in this regard. It is submitted that out of the above amount, an amount of `.3,22,59,695/- (Rupees Three crores twenty two lakhs fifty nine thousand six hundred and ninety five only) has been sanctioned to the petitioner Bank as interest relief by way of reimbursement of interest on agricultural loans, for the period up to 31.3.2006, as detailed below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Order No. Period of Amount No. & Date Claim sanction(in `.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CRP/390/02 29.12.01 to dt.19.1.2004 28.6.02 27,17,264/- 2. CRP/3268/04 2001-02 dt.26.7.05 balance portion in full & 2002-03 part 54,54,218/- 3. CRP/3268/04 Upto dt.8.5.06 31.3.2004 1,13,89,029/- -------------------- 1,95,60,511/- ======== 4. CRP/3268/04 1.4.04 to dt.29.5.06 31.3.05 61,66,070/- 5. CRP/3268/04 1.4.05 to dt.31.5.06 31.3.06 65,33,114/- --------------------- 3,22,59,695/- ======== 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submits that the eligible amount under the scheme has already been disbursed to the petitioner as narrated in the relevant paragraphs, including paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. With WPC 19339/06 4 regard to the claim for the balance amount of `.1,81,33,703/-, it is stated that, paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit clearly gives the picture, and that petitioner is not entitled to have the said amount by way of reimbursement, as the scheme is exclusively applicable to the 'agricultural loans' and that the interest, if any, waived by the petitioner Bank on 'non agricultural loans' is not eligible for reimbursement. 5. When the matter came up for consideration again on 18.3.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions as to the contents of the counter affidavit. It has been observed by this Court that, though the counter affidavit was filed in June 2007, as a matter of indulgence, a final opportunity was being given to ascertain the particular facts. No reply affidavit has been filed till date rebutting the specific averments in the counter affidavit. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that petitioner is not entitled to get any further relief. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. (P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge) tkv