IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22895 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.C.BABU, S/O.CHANDI, MULANKOTHARA HOUSE, PANATHOOR, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.C.THANKACHAN, S/O.CHANDI, MULANKOTHARA HOUSE, PANATHOOR, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MS. P.K.PRIYA MR. K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B.NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANHANGAD, RANINAGAR ROAD, KANHANGAD. 5. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, HOSDURG. 6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANATHADY VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. ADV. MR. P. GOPAL, STANDING COUNSEL R5 AND R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MATHEW VADAKKAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22895 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 27th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The case has taken several turns, when the petitioners who availed two different loans to the tune of Rs.1.2 lakhs and 2.37 lakhs respectively on 27.9.96 [sanctioned vide Exts. R4(a) and (b)] turned to be defaulters, which made the respondent Bank to proceed with the steps under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioners filed O.P. 11557 of 2001, challenging the applicability of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and as per the interim order dated 2.4.2001, this Court directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each but the said stipulation was not complied with, under which circumstance, the respondent Bank proceeded with further steps as borne by Exts. R4 (e) and R4(f). The petitioners approached this Court again by filing O.P. 18193 of 2003 and after taking note of the turn of events, this Court, as per interim order dated 12.6.2003 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each within one month, which was also not complied with and the said case, along with the former case, was dismissed as per Ext.P9 common judgment. 2. During the pendency of the above Writ Petitions, it appears that the petitioners had approached this Court also by filing WP(C) 19210 of 2007 and 19215 of 2007, without disclosing the pendency of WP (C) No. 22895 of 2009 : 2 : above proceedings. It is also brought to notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank that the position could not be brought to the notice of the Court, since the Bank was being represented through another learned counsel. The above 2 Writ Petitions, along with another Writ Petition filed by a similarly situated person, led to Ext.P2 judgment; whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/ each, on which event the claim of the petitioners for granting the benefit under the Ext.P3 Scheme mentioned therein (Ext.P1 Scheme in the present Writ Petition) was directed to be considered, so as to extend the benefits to the maximum extent payable. The petitioners satisfied the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- each and accordingly, the respondent Bank issued letters as borne by Exts. R4(g) and (h) dated 12.9.07 asking the petitioners to turn up for settlement. It is also the case of the respondent Bank, as pointed out in the counter affidavit filed in the present case, that despite issuance of such letters and also contacting the petitioners by Marketing Officers of the Bank, there was no response and the petitioners did not turn up. 3. In the meanwhile, a new Scheme as borne by Ext.P4 was notified and a copy of the same was forwarded to the Bank vide Ext. R4 (i) covering letter. Petitioners preferred Exts. P5 and P6 representations for availing the benefit under the Scheme, whereby Exts.P7 and P8 WP (C) No. 22895 of 2009 : 3 : replies were sent stating that, their representations have already been forwarded to the higher authorities. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking for extending the benefit under Ext. P4 Scheme. 4. The Bank has filed a detailed affidavit stating that, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of Ext.P4 Scheme and that the attempt of the petitioners to mix up Ext.P1 Scheme with Ext.P4 Scheme is not correct or sustainable. Ext.P1 Scheme was only with regard to waiver of interest on the 'over due amount' and the Bank is very much ready and willing to extend the benefit thereunder, even at this point of time, by virtue of Ext.P2 judgment, which has become final. But with regard to Ext.P4 Scheme, as clearly pointed out in clause 4.3, it is not applicable to any loan disbursed by a lending institution prior to 31.3.97. In the instant case, the loans having been sanctioned to the petitioner as per Ext. R4(a) and (b) on 27.9.96, the case of the petitioners does not come within the purview of the said Scheme. Reliance is also placed on Ext.R4(j) Circular dated 28.5.08 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India in this regard. In response to the querry, whether the loans disbursed on 31.3.97 are eligible to the Scheme, it has been clarified by the Government in Ext.P10 (at serial No. 20) that the Scheme does not apply to any loan disbursed by lending institutions prior to the close of business on 31.3.1997. This being the position, WP (C) No. 22895 of 2009 : 4 : there cannot be any ambiguity with regard to the proclaimed eligibility of the petitioners to have the benefit under Ext.P4 Scheme, which in fact is not applicable to them and it is declared accordingly. 5. Coming to the benefit of Ext.P1 Scheme ordered to be extended to the petitioners vide Ext.P2 judgment (referring to Ext.P3 Scheme therein), the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that, if the petitioners effect a substantial portion of the liability, the Bank is very much ready and willing to consider the matter again, so as to extend the benefit to the extent permissible, notwithstanding the lapses on the part of the petitioners. It is brought to the notice of this Court, as contended by the respondent Bank in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that, the first petitioner is to clear a sum of Rs. 4,83,589/ and the second petitioner owes a sum of Rs, 8,58,856/- as on 31.3.09. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, if the petitioners approach the respondent Bank by filing a representation along with a copy of this judgment and also remitting a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and 2 lakhs respectively within one month, the same shall be considered, so as to extend the eligible benefit as directed by this Court, vide Ext.P2 judgment. This shall be considered and finalized and the outcome shall be communicated to the petitioners within a further period of two WP (C) No. 22895 of 2009 : 5 : months thereafter. If the petitioners do not satisfy the liability so communicated in the manner as specified by the Bank, the respondent Bank will at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the same. The Bank will also consider the necessity to extend the benefit of installments, so as to enable the petitioners to wipe off the entire balance liability as above. Subject to the above, the coercive proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioners for realization of the due amount shall be kept in abeyance, for the time being. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd