IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34512 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. M.K.PAILY, S/O.M.P.KURIAN, AGED 53 YEARS, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, KODIKKULAM.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. M.P.KURIAN, S/O.PAILY, AGED 80 YEARS, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, KODIKKULAM.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SRI.R.SANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SECRETARY, NEDUMUTTAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1298, NEDUMUTTAM, VANDAMATTOM.P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 582. 2. SPECIAL SALES OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ASST.REGISTRAR (G), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584. 3. SETTLEMENT OFFICER (AGRICULTURAL RELIEF-2008), DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK-IDUKKI, IDUKKI COLONY.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 685 602. 4. SECRETARY (FINANCIAL SERVICES), DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01. R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34512 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners who are loanees of the first respondent filed this writ petition mainly with a prayer to quash Exts.P6, P7, P9 and P10 also with a further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to take necessary action on Ext.P2 and P3 applications by complying the provisions of Exts.P1 and P5. The further prayer of the petitioners is for a direction to the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 and P10 till a decision is taken on Exts.P2 and P3 applications. 2. Essentially, the contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to get the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Relief Scheme, 2008. It is submitted that for getting the relief under Ext.P1 scheme they have submitted Ext.P2 and P3 representations. The 3rd respondent who is the authority competent to consider the entitlement of the petitioners to the benefits under Ext.P1 scheme refuses to entertain the applications on the ground that they were WPC.34512/2010 : 2 : received belatedly. In fact, Exts.P6 and P7 would reveal that the 3rd respondent has refused to receive the representation submitted by the petitioners for the said reason. 3. On 19.11.2010 this Court passed an interim order requiring that the sale in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner, if effected, shall not be confirmed for a period of one month. The said order has been extended from time to time. As per the said order, notice was also ordered to be served on the 3rd respondent by special messenger. Accordingly, notice was served on the 3rd respondent. Despite the receipt of the notice there is no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. 5. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent at this stage. As noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioners is that Exts.P2 and P3 applications submitted before the 3rd respondent for getting the benefits in Ext.P1 scheme in the light of the provision in Ext.P5 were WPC.34512/2010 : 3 : refused to be received and considered by the 3rd respondent. It is discernible from Exts.P6 and P7, they were refused on the ground that the said representations were received after 31.1.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that such a cut off date has not been prescribed anywhere. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit under Ext.P1 scheme in terms of Ext.P5. In fact, it is for the purpose of ascertaining whether any such cut off date has been prescribed that notice has been issued to the 3rd respondent. That apart, it is to be noted that specific contention of the petitioners is that they have submitted Exts.P2 and P3 applications respectively on 20.7.2009 and 24.7.2009. The factum that they had forwarded Exts.P2 and P3 applications on the aforementioned dates is discernible from Ext.P4. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions, rather, the entitlement of the petitioners to get the benefits of Ext.P1 in terms of Ext.P5, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to receive Exts.P2 and P3 applications from the petitioners and to consider and pass WPC.34512/2010 : 4 : appropriate orders thereon, on merits. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioners as also to the first respondent. Till such time, the interim order dated 19.11.2010 will continue to be in force. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge