IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 8007 of 2011(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.J.EMMANUEL, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, KARIKULATHEL, SREEKRISHNAPURAM OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, 3H AVENUE, WEST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN:678001 2. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURE DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008,STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, KANJIRAPUZHA, THACHAMPARA P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678593. SC FOR SBI- SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.8007 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Ext.P2 Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, after giving a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to have the said benefit. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: The petitioner, who is stated as an agriculturist owning an extent of 2.98 acres of agricultural land in survey Nos.2121/pt (2.48 Acres), 2107 and 2108/pt (50 cents) in Palakkayam Village, obtained a loan allegedly for the agricultural purpose on 10-05-2006 (ATL 1082) agreeing to repay the due amount in 14 half yearly instalments. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to remit the instalments and in the meanwhile, the Palakkad District was ordered as 'drought affected area'. 3. The case of the petitioner is that when the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme was announced by the Central Government , he approached the respondent bank for the benefits thereunder. However, the request was turned down by Ext.P6, stating that the petitioner did not come within the purview of the said scheme, which in turn is under challenge. W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason stated in Ext.P6 does not reconcile with the contents of Ext.P2 scheme, in so far as para 3 of the said scheme clearly defines the terms 'Direct Agricultural Loans', 'Short Term Production Loans' and 'Investment Loans', which are extracted below for the convenience of reference. 3.1 “'Direct Agricultural Loans' means Short Term Production Loans and Investment Loans provided directly to farmers for agricultural purposes. This would also include such loans provided directly to groups of individual farmers (for example Self Help Groups and Joint Liability Groups), provided banks maintain disaggregated data of the loan extended to each farmer belonging to that group. 3.2 'Short Term Production Loan' means a loan given in connection with the raising of crops which is to be repaid within 18 months. It will include working capital loan, not exceeding Rs.1 lakh, for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture. 3.3 'Investment Loan' means, (a) Investment credit for direct agricultural activities extended for meeting outlays relating to the replacement and maintenance of wasting assets and for capital investment designed to increase the output from the land, e.g deepening of wells, sinking of new wells, installation of pump sets, purchase of tractor/pair of bullocks, land development and term loan for traditional and non-traditional plantations and horticulture; and (b) Investment credit for allied activities for acquiring assets in respect of activities allied to agriculture e.g dairy, poultry farming, goatery, sheep rearing, piggery, fisheries, bee-keeping, green houses and biogas.” W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011 3 With reference to the above clauses, the learned counsel submits that the loan procured by the petitioner for the purpose of 'investment' and also for 'constructing compound wall' is very much related to the agricultural purpose and hence, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents for having rejected the benefit under Ext.P2, which is sought to be intercepted. 5. The learned standing counsel for the Bank, with reference to the contents of the statement filed on 07-07-2008, submits that the request made by the petitioner was examined in the light of the contents of the scheme and it was only after a meticulous analysis, that the request was turned down by Ext.P6, which is not assailable under any circumstance. It is stated in unequivocal terms, that Ext.P2 scheme is applicable to the loans covered by clauses 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 only; while the petitioner's investment was for the purpose of purchasing the land and for construction of the compound wall , which have been termed as not related to the “agricultural purpose”. 6. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made from the part of the respondents. When the petitioner seeks for the benefit of Ext.P2 scheme, the matter can be examined only with reference to the specific terms of the scheme, which cannot be widened by this Court, more so in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on the point. W.P.(C) N0.8007/2011 4 In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled to have the reliefs sought for. Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE