IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10465 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF P.K. S/O. KHADER, AGED 43 YEARS, KANNANKOTT HOUSE, NADERI P.O., QUILANDY (VIA), PIN-673 326, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, ARIKULAM BRANCH, KOZHIKODE-MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, MUDIPPURAM LANE, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 4. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).10465/2009 ....................... Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner availed a loan from the 1st respondent, Bank, noted as agricultural gold loan to the tune of Rs.1,23,000/-. Essentially the loan was availed by pledging the gold ornaments and according to the petitioner, it was used for agricultural purpose. Petitioner submits that though he is entitled to the benefit under the Agriculture Debt Relief, he has not been granted the same. This has been challenged by the petitioner and hence the writ petition. 2. Bank has filed a statement pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. It seems that the petitioner availed an Agricultural Gold Loan (AGL) 2488/06 of Rs.1,23,000/- on 14.10.2006. Gold loans are short term loans which are repayable within a period of one year. Petitioner also has a Savings Bank account with the bank. Petitioner executed a pledge letter towards the loan account. He had availed two W.P.(C).10465/2009 2 other loans of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.75,000/- respectively. Gold loan is given for a period of one year. On the expiry of the said period, petitioner availed another Gold Loan for an amount of Rs.1,23,000/- and closed the earlier gold loan account by transferring the amount from the loan account to the Savings Bank Account. Petitioner withdrew the amount from the savings bank account and remitted the cash withdrawn, in the gold loan account which was then sought to be closed. Then a fresh gold loan was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and a fresh pledge letter was executed on 15.10.2007. According to the petitioner, the gold loan was closed in October 2007, but had it remained as a defaulted loan account beyond 31.12.2007, he would have been given the benefit of the Agriculture Debt Relief Scheme. 3. I heard learned counsel on both sides. The extent of concession granted under the Scheme for agricultural loan is dependent on the extent of property held by the petitioner. Petitioner had actually W.P.(C).10465/2009 3 closed the first loan and he cannot now be heard to say that an independent transaction was manipulated by the Bank authorities. The amount sanctioned under the new loan had been transferred to the SBI account, had withdrawn the same and then deposited it in the agricultural gold loan account. What the Bank has done is a refinancing facility and it so happened that the said facility was afforded in October 2007. Be that as it may, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was not a defaulter vis-a-vis the new loan account as on 31.12.2007. He is therefore, not entitled to be treated as a defaulter under the Agriculture Debt Relief Scheme. I find no merit in the writ petition. Hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs