IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 573 of 2009 ---------------------------- (ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.4001/2009 DATED 10/02/2009) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SRI.RAJU M.THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, MALAMEL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O., KONDUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.T.V.GEORGE, MR.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL). RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL OFFICER, (AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND RELIEF SCHEME 2008), MEENACHIL EAST, URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., POONJAR EAST, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. THE MEENACHIL EAST, URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.4266, POONJAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, POONJAR EAST, KOTTAYAM DIST. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, POONJAR. R1 & R2 BY ADVS.MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL, MR.T.V.VINU, R3 BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A.NO.573 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.4001 of 2009 on 10.2.2009. The appellant availed a cash credit facility from the second respondent-Bank for a period of 36 months. One of the conditions was that the appellant should remit the interest quarterly. Another condition was that there should be atleast one operation in the account during the period of 3 months. Immediately on getting the facility, the appellant availed the maximum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- under the cash credit facility. He did not pay the interest, nor was there any transaction in that account thereafter. Therefore, the Bank recalled the facility, moved the Arbitrator and obtained Exhibit P4 award. When execution steps were taken, the appellant moved the first respondent, seeking the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The first respondent, who is the competent authority to decide on the eligibility of the petitioner, 2 rejected his claim by Exhibit P5. Instead of invoking the statutory remedy available to him, the appellant straight away approached this Court, challenging that order. Though the Writ Petition was entertained, the learned Single Judge took a view that this is not a fit case for granting interim order and the prayer for interim relief was declined. Hence, this appeal. 2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. 3. Going by the facts of the case, we feel that the view taken by the learned Judge on the question of interim relief cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse, warranting correction at our hands in this appeal. Apart from that, the appeal is not maintainable, going by the principles laid down by this Court in K.S.Das v. State of Kerala (1992(2) KLT 358). Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. If the appellant moves for early hearing of the Writ Petition before the learned Judge, the respondents shall co-operate with the same, so that the Writ Petition itself could be disposed of. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE 3 vgs.