IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 21742 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. A.SARASWATHY, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LAKSHMANAN,AMBATTUPALAYAM P.O.,CHITTUR COLLEGE CHITTUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. L.ARAVINDAKSHAN,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,AMBATTUPALAYAM P.O.,CHITTUR COLLEGE CHITTUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. L.SHIVADAS, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN,AMBATTUPALAYAM P.O., CHITTUR COLLEGE,CHITTUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P. ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT,CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NI.18, P.O.CHITTUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678101,KERALA. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,(NABARD), KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, POST BOX NO.5613, PUNNEN ROAD, STATUE JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695039. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, PALAKKAD. 4. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIES, CHITTUR,PALAKKAD. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R3 SRI.G.HARIHARAN FOR R1 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.21742/09 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 11.2.08 ISSUED BY R1. P2 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT 23.5.08 ISSUED BY R2. P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 14.7.08 ISSUED BY R3 TO R1. P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 18.7.08 SUBMITTED TO R1. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 6.8.08 ISSUED BY R1. P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 24.12.08 ISSUED BY R4. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 30.12.08 ISSUED BY R1. P8 COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN ARC.3153/09 ISSUED BY R4. P8(A) COPY OF THE PETITION IN ARC.3153/09. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge S. SIRI JAGAN, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 21742 of 2009 `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are defaulters in repayment of loan amounts due to the Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.18. The bank has initiated proceedings before the Arbitrator under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of the amounts due under the loans. The petitioners' contention herein is that the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of the debt relief scheme formulated by the Government of India since loans availed of by the petitioners are agricultural loans. However, the petitioners' claim has been rejected on the ground that the loans availed of by the petitioners do not come within the scope of the scheme. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs:- “ (i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P6 and P7 issued by the 4th and 1st respondents. (ii) issue a declaration that there is no justification for excluding the petitioners from the WPC.21742/09 : 2 : benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008 as clarified in Exts.P6 and P7.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent had actually recommended the petitioners' case for benefit under the debt relief scheme. However, the District Co-operative Bank has held that the loans availed of by the petitioners do not come within the scope of the debt relief scheme, is the contention raised by the first respondent. 3. I have heard both sides. Admittedly, the first respondent has filed an ARC in which Exts.P8 and P8(a) notices have been issued to the petitioners. In proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Arbitrator is bound to consider the disputes between the petitioners and the first respondent. That dispute includes the eligibility of the petitioners for the benefit of the debt relief scheme. Therefore, the Arbitrator has a duty to consider whether the petitioners' claim for benefits under the debt relief scheme has been rightly rejected or not. Therefore, I am of opinion that in the first instance, the Arbitrator should consider the eligibility of the petitioners for WPC.21742/09 : 3 : benefits under the debt relief scheme. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Arbitrator, who is to consider the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P8 and P8(a), to consider the eligibility of the petitioners for benefits under the debt relief scheme also on merits on the basis of the provisions of the scheme, while disposing of ARC No.3153/09. (S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE) aks