IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4848 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.O.KURIAKOSE, S/O.OUSEPH, KOOTHUR VELLATTUKARA HOUSE, ERIMBRANELLUR, VENKITANGU, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, VENKITANGU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE, DELHI. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R1 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.4848 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he had availed of an agricultural gold loan from the first respondent Bank. The loan was initially availed of in 2004. The case of the petitioner is that on an annual basis he was paying interest and therefore the loan availed of in 2004 is still continuing. Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P6 Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme was rejected as per Ext.P9. it is challenging Ext.P9 that this writ petition is field. 2. In Ext.P9 what is relied on is clause 4(b) of Ext.P6. Clause 4(b) provides that, in case of an investment loan, instalments of such loan that are over due, if the loan be disbursed up to 31st March, 2007 and overdue as on 31st December, 2007 and remaining unpaid until 29th February, WP(c).No.4848/09 /2/ 2008 is eligible for the benefit of the scheme. 3. Admittedly, in this case, although the loan was availed of initially in 2004 by paying interest on an annual basis, the loan was being renewed on every year. If that be so, the loan in question was disbursed only in April, 2007 and fell due only in April, 2008. If that be so, the case of the petitioner does not fall within clause 4(b) of Ext.P6 scheme and consequently the rejection of Ext.P7 by Ext.P9 cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/