IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 6513 of 2010(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- SMT.NOORJAHAN, WIFE OF LATE MOHAMMADALI, KARIPPALI, TATTAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. NABARD, PANNIAM ROAD, P.B.NO.5613, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P.502, P.O.TATTAMANGALAM-678102, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P.502, P.O.TATTAMANGALAM-678102. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.HARILAL, ASGI SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASGI SRI. T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASGI R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 6513 of 2010(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008. EXT.P3 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 14.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RSPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 14.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RSPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 13.01.2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.8.2009 IN WP(C) NO. 22714 OF 2009. EXT.P7 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 12.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 09.09.2009 ISSUED TO LATE MOHAMMADALI BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED DO. DO ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 6513 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner along with her late husband Sri. Mohammadli had availed two distinct loans from the 3rd respondent Bank on 30-03-2004, to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,75,000/- respectively, for the purpose of land development and Dairy business. Consequent to default committed in re-payment, recovery steps were initiated by the 3rd respondent. On the basis of applications submitted by the 3rd respondent, the Arbitrator appointed under the Co-operative Societies Act (Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Chittur) had passed awards dated 24-02-2006, enabling realisation of a sum of Rs.1,83,934/- and Rs.2,91,450/- respectively. When sale proceedings were initiated in execution of the awards, the petitioner along with her husband had approached this court in W.P (c) No.24940/2007 and in W.P (c) No.2024/2007. This court passed an interim order subject to condition of the W.P.(c) No.6513/2010 -2- petitioner and her husband remitting a sum of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.25,000/-, respectively. In compliance with the interim order the remittances were made, as evident from Ext.P1 receipt. In the meanwhile, the Central Government have introduced Ext.P2 scheme, namely “Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.” Since the loan accounts in default will fall within the eligible category under Ext.P2 scheme, they submitted applications before the 4th respondent, who is the 'Grievance Redressal Officer' under Ext.P2 scheme, as per Exts.P3 and P4. When those applications were not considered the Petitioner and her husband had approached this court again in W.P (c) No.22714/2009. In Ext.P6 judgment this court directed the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and P4 within a time limit stipulated. But the 4th respondent had rejected the claims stating that the loans in question will not come within the purview of Ext.P2 scheme. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the said decision taken under Exts.P8 and P9. W.P.(c) No.6513/2010 -3- 2. Contention of the petitioner is that the loans availed by the petitioner and her husband were in the nature of investment loans categorised under clause 3.3 of Ext.P2 scheme. It is further contended that the amounts due under the loan accounts will fall within the category mentioned under Clause 4.1 (b) (i) of Ext.P2, since the loans were disbursed prior to 31-03-2007 and it remained over due as on 31st December 2007, and further it remained unpaid till 29-02-2008. It is contended that the loans were availed in the year 2004 and the awards of the Arbitrator were passed on 24-02-2006. Therefore, the loans were remaining over due as on 31-12-2007 and it was remaining unpaid as on 29-02-2008. It is contended that Exts.P8 and P9 are cryptic orders issued by the 4th respondent in which no reasoning is mentioned for rejection of the claims for waiver. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents contended that any loans with respect to which award is passed by the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act, will not fall within the eligible category under W.P.(c) No.6513/2010 -4- Ext.P2. It is also contended that since the petitioner as well as her husband had remitted a part of the amount as evidenced from Ext.P1 the loans in question could not be categorised as loans remaining over due for payment. 4. On a perusal of the various clauses in Ext.P2 scheme, I notice that the benefits are available to, direct agricultural loans, short term production loans and investment loans which satisfied the different parameters prescribed under the scheme. Clause 4 of Ext.P2 prescribes the details of eligible amount for waiver or debt relief. As mentioned above, under Clause 4.1 (b) (i), the amount eligible for waiver in the case of investment loans is the installments remaining overdue together with applicable interest of such installments. The only condition stipulated is that, for coming within the eligible category the loan should have disbursed before 31-03-2007 and it should have remained over due as on 31-12-2007 and further it should remain unpaid till 29-02-2008. I do not find any reason to accept the contentions of respondents 3 and 4 that loans in W.P.(c) No.6513/2010 -5- question are not remaining over due. It is not disputed that the loans were availed before 31-03-2007 and it became overdue as on 31-12-2007. Mearly because awards were passed with respect to the arrears in the loan accounts, it cannot be said that the loans will not fall within the eligible category. Further, even assuming that part payments were made, there are amounts remaining due as unpaid as on 29-02-2008. Hence, I am of the view that amounts remaining unpaid in the loan account will fall within the eligible category as mentioned in Clause 4 of Ext.P2 and that the petitioner as well as her deceased husband were eligible for the benefit of waiver, to the extent it is provided under Ext.P2. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Exts.P8 and P9 cannot be sustained. Hence this writ petition is allowed. Exhibits P8 and P9 are hereby quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to re-consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications submitted seeking waiver and to take appropriate decision allowing W.P.(c) No.6513/2010 -6- benefits under Ext.P2 scheme, in view of the conclusions arrived as above, if the petitioner and her husband were eligible. The needful in this regard shall be done by the 4th respondent, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge