1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3858 OF 2008 (Buldana District Urban Salary Earners Cooperative Society's Federation Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2009 Heard Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent no.1 and Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that petitioner no.2 Buldana Urban Cooperative Credit Society is entitled to get the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of 2008. However, this benefit has been denied to the petitioner no.2 without any justification. It is contended that the petitioner no.2 has given loan to the agriculturists and, therefore, is entitled to get benefit of the said scheme, which is extended to 2 the other Societies and Banks, which are similarly circumstanced. It is further contended that scheme declared by the Central Government is not uniformly made applicable to the Societies and, therefore, the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the said scheme to the petitioner no.2 Bank is discriminatory and, therefore, unsustainable in law. Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 declared by the Central Government is applicable to the Cooperative Credit Institutions and in Clause 3.4, the definition of “Cooperative Credit Institution” is given, which reads thus : “3.4 “Cooperative Credit Institution” means a Cooperative Society that - (i) provides short term crop loans to farmers and is eligible for interest subvention from the Central Government, or (ii) carries on banking activities regulated or surprised by RBI or NABARD; or (iii) is part of the Short-Term Cooperative Credit Structure or Long-Term Cooperative Credit Structure in a State or Union Territory.” 3 It is submitted that so far as the Urban Credit Cooperative Societies as well as other Rural Non- Agricultural Credit Cooperative Societies are concerned, they do not come within the ambit of “Cooperative Credit Institution” because : (a) these Societies do not receive interest subvention from the Central Government, (b) they do not carry on banking activities regulated or supervised by the Reserve Bank of India or NABARD (National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development); (c) they are not part of short term or long term Cooperative Credit Structure. It is, therefore, contended that since petitioner no.2 does not come within the purview of Clause 3.4 of the Welfare Scheme, the provisions of the said Scheme cannot be extended to the petitioner no.2. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned respective Counsel and perused the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2 as well as communication issued by the NABARD, which is annexed as Annexure R-1 to the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 On 4 perusal of Clause 3.4 of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme of 2008 as well as reply filed by the respondent no.2 and the letter of NABARD, it is evident that petitioner no.2 cannot be termed as “Cooperative Credit Institution” since it does not receive interest subvention from the Central Government and does not carry out banking activities regulated or supervised by the Reserve Bank of India or NABARD nor is the part of short term or long term cooperative credit structure. In absence thereof, petitioner no.2, in our view, is not covered by the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 declared by the Central Government. Shri Jichkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that since petitioner no.2 is not covered by the scheme of 2008, it is open for the petitioner no.2 to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for recovery of loan amount. So far as contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners based on Government Circular dated 3.1.2006 for getting the benefit of the said scheme is concerned, for the reasons stated hereinabove, same is rejected. No case is 5 made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj