IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 35835 of 2008(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SUNNY THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS AGED PALAKKATTU KUNNEL, EDAMARUKU PO, MELUKAVU VILLAGE ,MELUKAVU VILLAGE. 2. MERCYKUTTY SUNNY, W/O.SUNNY THOMAS DO.....DO... 3. ANNAMMA THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, DO....DO.. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ERATTUPETTA. 2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA,KOTTAYAM. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO BANKING AND FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.SAJI VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.35835 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order is under challenge. 2. By this order, application made by the petitioners for the benefit of Debt Relief Scheme announced by the Government of India and implemented by the Bank has been rejected. Reason stated is that the loan availed of by the petitioners is not an agricultural loan. 3. It was taking into account the case of the petitioners that the loan availed of by the petitioners was an agricultural loan, this Court directed the Bank to file a statement producing a copy of the loan agreement and loan application. Accordingly, the Bank has filed statement and documents have been produced. On perusal of the documents, it is revealed that the loan availed of was a term loan and not an agricultural loan. If that be so, the rejection of the petitioners' request by Ext.P6 cannot be faulted. 4. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance to the decree obtained by the Bank, the mortgaged property is kept for sale. Therefore, the learned counsel WP(C) No.35835/2008 -2- seeks a reasonable time to discharge the liability, so that the sale could be avoided. 5. I heard both sides and taking into account the submissions made, it is directed that the Bank will give the petitioners two months time from today, so that the petitioners will be in a position to discharge the liability, failing which the Bank can sell the mortgaged property. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg