IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 7029 of 2010(C) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MERCY CHERIAN, W/O.CHERIYAN, PELAKUDY HOUSE, THATTEKKAD P.O., VELIYELCHAL, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE KEERAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KEERAMPARA P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 7029 of 2010(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 19.10.2006 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DETAILS OF LOAN DATED 04.07.2008 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE QUIDE LINES DATED 05.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 11.08.2008 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.10.2009 IN WP(C) NO. 32969/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7029 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Grievance voiced in this writ petition is against refusal to allow waiver under Ext.P3, “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008”. The petitioner had availed an agricultural loan (Kissan Credit Card Loan) on 19.10.2006. Repayment period of the loan, as per Ext.P1, was 36 months. According to the petitioner, the benefits provided under Ext.P3 scheme was available with respect to loans availed prior to 31.3.2007, subject to condition that, with respect to accounts declared as NPA the benefit will be granted only with respect to amounts in arrears upto 31.12.2007. Petitioner's request for granting the benefit under Ext.P3 was rejected by the 1st respondent Bank through Ext.P4 stating the reason that the loan in question availed by the petitioner was renewed with effect from W.P.(C).7029/10 -2- 1.4.2007, along with similar other loans, after obtaining permission from the District Co-operative Bank. Hence it is stated that the loan in question will not come within the purview of Ext.P3 since there was no arrears as on 31.12.2007 and the loan in question was not availed prior to 31.3.2007. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the alleged renewal was made without notice to the petitioner and even without getting any application from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the period of original loan will expire only in the year 2009 and as such renewal was not warranted as on 1.4.2007. The petitioner points out Ext.P5 judgment of this court in W.P(C).32969/2008, wherein on an identical situation this court observed that the Kissan Credit Card loan is also eligible for coverage under Ext.P3 scheme and in that case it esd specifically observed that the alleged renewal of loan granted by the Bank could not deprive the benefit of the scheme. In that case it was observed that, since the Bank has no case that renewal was on the basis of any application made by the petitioner and since it was W.P.(C).7029/10 -3- realised that the term of original loan agreement has not expired, there was no reason or necessity to have the renewal in the year 2007. Observing that the loan was unilaterally renewed with a view to deny the benefit available under Ext.P3 scheme, this court observed that rejection of the benefit cannot be upheld. This court after quashing the renewal had directed the 1st respondent Bank to reconsider the application ignoring the alleged renewal. 3. I take note of the fact that Ext.P5 judgment is passed against the very same bank, who is the 1st respondent herein. The facts and circumstances of the case is exactly identical. Hence I do not find any reason as to why similar benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner herein. 4. Therefore the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P4 order is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P3 scheme, ignoring the alleged renewal of loan for the period commencing from 1.4.2007. W.P.(C).7029/10 -4- 5. Needful in this regard shall be done expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (Sd/-) C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb True copy P.A to Judge