IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 33539 of 2009(J) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. TELO, S/O.ANANDASUBRAMANYAN ANANTHAPURAM, PARAYAKAD PO, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 2. SHIL S/O.ANANDASUBRAMANYAN ANANTHAPURAM, PARAYAKAD PO, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 3. VIMALA W/O.ANANDASUBRAMANYAN ANANTHAPURAM, PARAYAKAD PO, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. 4. THANKARAJ, S/O.VASU THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, PARAYAKAD PO, CHERTHALA ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.R.ASHALATHA VARMA SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER THE NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT (NABARD) KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE PUNNOM ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, ALLEPPEY ...2/- WP(C).No. 33539 of 2009(J) -2- 4. THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER ALLEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK CHERTHALA BRANCH. 5. THE PARAYAKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.2869, PARAYAKAD P.O.,THURAVOOR,CHERTHALA ALLEPPEY DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMED HASHIM R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY R5 BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...3/- WP(C).No. 33539 of 2009(J) -3- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DEED DATED 24.11.2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/2/04 ISSUED BY THE PUNCHA SPECIAL OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. NB (KERALA) CPD/1566/PL-14/2008-2009 DATED 23-5-2008 ISSUED BY NABARD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH OTHER PETITIONERS DATED 16.7.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JOINT REPRESENTATION DATED 25.5.2009. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 29/6/2009 IN WP(C) 1807/09 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE LEGITIMATE CLAIMS OF THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE TELO A. ON 10.11.2000. EXT.R5(b): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THANKARAJ ON 10.11.2000. EXT.R5(c): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY VIMALA ON 10.11.2000. EXT.R5(d): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SHIL ON 10.11.2000. EXT.R4(a): COPY OF THE LOAN APPLICATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AS FURNISHED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.R4(b): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.09.2009 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33539 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Petitioners claim to be agriculturalists engaged in cultivation of paddy in a 'Padasekharam' at Thuravoor in Cherthala Taluk. It is stated that they were conducting group farming with assistance of the Panchayat and Agricultural Department of the State Government. In the year 2000, for the purpose of agricultural operations they have taken land on lease having an extent of 3.35 Acres. The petitioners applied for and obtained loans from the 6th respondent Bank to the tune of Rs.50,000/- each, on jointly executing mortgage deed as per Ext.P1, on 24.11.2000. It is the case of the petitioners that, due to adverse climatic conditions the entire crops were washed away causing heavy damages. Ext.P2 is a letter issued by the Puncha Special Officer, which will indicate that the State Government took steps to assess damages for the purpose of granting reliefs. It is stated that prompt repayments in the loan accounts could not be made under the adverse circumstances mentioned above. W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 2 2. It is contended by the petitioners that the Central Government had announced a “Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme” in the year 2008, in which waiver of agricultural loan borrowed by small and marginal farmers from rural co-operative institutions was contemplated. As per the Scheme, the Government of India had allotted an amount of Rs.50,000/- Crores for providing reimbursement in lieu of the waiver to be provided. The 2nd respondent, the NABARD, was appointed as the nodal agency for effective implementation of the Scheme. Ext.P3 is a circular issued by the 2nd respondent prescribing guidelines and parameters for implementation of the scheme. According to the petitioners, the loans in question availed from the 5th respondent will squarely fall within the ambit of Ext.P3. 3. But the 5th respondent has not included the loans in question for considering waiver, in accordance with the terms of the Scheme. Therefore, the petitioners have approached the 4th respondent, who is the redressal officer under Ext.P3, with respect to Co-operative Societies, for considering grievances in the matter of implementation of the Scheme. Ext.P4 series are W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 3 representations submitted in this regard before the 4th respondent. Since Ext.P4 series applications were not considered, the petitioners have approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.P.(C) No.18071/2009. In Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the 4th respondent to take a decision on the claims, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext.P7 series are the communications indicating the decisions taken by the 4th respondent. The request made by the petitioners were declined assigning the reason that the loans were applied only for purchasing property and such requirements will not come within the purview of the Scheme. 4. According to the petitioners, the decision taken under Ext.P7 series is totally incorrect and improper. It is pointed out that the benefits were declined only due to political reasons. Attention of this Court was drawn to the recitals in Ext.P1 mortgage deed, which specifically indicates that the loans in question were sanctioned for agricultural purposes. Further, it is pointed out that Ext.R5 series loan applications submitted by W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 4 the petitioners will clearly indicate that the Director Board of the 5th respondent Bank took a resolution to sanction the loans for the purpose of agriculture. Under such circumstances, denial of benefits to the petitioners is not at all justified, is the contention. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent it is stated that in the applications submitted by the petitioners the purpose of the loans is indicated as, “for purchase of property”. It is further contended that the petitioners have not effected any paddy cultivation and the loan amounts were utilised only for purchasing property. It is mentioned that merely because the purpose shown in the mortgage deed is agriculture, the character of the loan will not be changed. 6. In the counter affidavit of the 4th respondent it is pointed out that, while considering requests of the petitioners, the loan applications were made available for perusal by the 5th respondent, and it indicated the purpose for which the loans were availed as, “to purchase land”. The profession of some of W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 5 the petitioners is indicated as 'business'. In one case it is indicated as 'House wife' and in some other cases as 'Agriculture'. Therefore, the loans in question are squarely outside the purview of the scheme, is the finding. It is further stated that Ext.P1 mortgage deed alone could not be looked into inorder to arrive at a conclusion that the loan sanctioned was for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, it was held that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits under the Scheme. 7. On a perusal of Ext.P3 circular issued by NABARD, it is evident that, all short term loan sanctioned for agricultural purposes (emphasis supplied) will come within the purview of the Debt Relief Scheme. It also revealed that project loans for various incidental purposes connected with the agricultural operations will also be considered as eligible loans to which the benefits under the Scheme can be extended. in the case at hand it is clear that the loans in question were sanctioned for “agricultural purposes”, as evident from decision of the Board of Directors of the 5th respondent and also from the recitals of the Mortgage Deed. The petitioners explain that in the applications W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 6 the purpose was shown as “purchase of land” only because they were intending to take agricultural land on lease for conducting the group farming activity. It is further contended that the 5th respondent Bank has no scheme for providing loans for purchase of land. The learned counsel for 5th respondent is not in a position to deny such statement. 8. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the reasons stated in Ext.P7 series, for denying benefit of the scheme to the petitioners, is totally unsustainable. The claim of the petitioners need be considered afresh on the basis that the loans availed by them from the 5th respondent Bank are agricultural loans. Whether all the other parameters prescribed under Ext.P3 circular is satisfied for extending benefits under the Scheme, is a matter which need be examined further. 9. In the result the Writ Petition is disposed of relegating the matter for reconsideration of the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent is directed to reconsider eligibility of the petitioners W.P.(C) No.33539/2009 7 for waiver of possible amounts due under the loans availed by the petitioners, treating those loan transactions as 'agricultural loans' coming within the purview of Ext.P3 circular. 10. Needless to say that, if the petitioners fulfill other parameters prescribed in Ext.P3, the benefits available under the Scheme shall be provided to them without any further delay. A decision in this regard shall be taken and communicated to the petitioners and the 5th respondent Bank, at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE) ps/9/09