1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.A. (MD) Nos.390 and 391 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 & 1 of 2011 M. Palsamy : Appellant in both the appeals vs. 1 The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District 2 The Inspector of Police Vasudevanallur Police Station Vasudevanallur Sivagiri Taluk Tirunelveli District 3 The Branch Manager Indian Bank Vasudevanallur Tirunelveli District : Respondents in both the appeals W.A. (MD) No.390 of 2011 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in M.P. No.3 of 2010 in W.P. (MD) No.12694 of 2010. W.A. (MD) No.391 of 2011 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2010 in W.P. (MD) No.12694 of 2010. Prayer in WP(MD)No.12695 of 2010: Prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or nay other Writ or order or direction in the nature of writ directing the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate order waiving of entire Agriculture Loan obtained from the 3rd respondent Bank by the petitioner in Loan A/c.Nos.529389971, 529394073, 529394663 as per the Central Government Agriculture Loan waiving and debt relief scheme 2008 and as per the existing schemes issued by the Reserve Bank of India and Central and State Government from time to time and pass such further or any other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to be circumstances of this case and thus render justice. Prayer in MP(MD)No.2/2010 in WP(MD)No.12694 of 2010: Praying that to stay the auction proceedings to be held on 8/10/2010 by the 3rd respondent which is published in the News Paper Thinathanthi dated 01/10/2010 pending disposal of the W.P.No.12694 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Prayer in MP(MD)No.3/2010 in WP(MD)No.12694 of 2010: Praying that to modify the earlier order passed in MP(MD)No.2/2010 in the WP(MD)No.12694/2010 dated 8/10/2010. Prayer in MP(MD)No.1/2011 in WP(MD)No.12694/2010: Praying that Vacate the interim order dated 23/12/2010 in MP(MD)No.3 of 2010 in WP.No.12694/2010. For appellant in both the appeals : Mr. K.K. Kannan For R3 in :Mr. P. Balamurugan both the appeals for Mr. V. Sasikumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SUGUNA, J.) While W.A. (MD) No.390 of 2011 is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in M.P. No.3 of 2010 in W.P. (MD) No.12694 of 2010, W.A (MD) No.391 of 2011 is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2011 passed in M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2010 in W.P. (MD) No.12694 of 2010. 2. The above said writ petition, viz., W.P. (MD) No.12694 of 2010 was filed challenging the tender-cum-auction notice dated 01.10.2010 issued by the third respondent bank by which it was informed that the petitioner's tractor-trailor will be subject to tender-cum-auction sale at 4.00 p.m. on 08.10.2010. 3. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner is that he is an agriculturist; for purchasing a tractor with trailor bearing Regn. Nos. TN- 76-Z 7401 and TN-76-Z 7402 respectively, he borrowed loan under A/c Nos.529389971, 529394073 and 529394663 from the third respondent bank; however, he committed default in repayment of the said loan and based on the said default committed by him, tender-cum-auction sale notice was issued by the third respondent bank and that was challenged in the writ petition. 4. By order dated 08.10.2010, in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2010, interim stay of the impugned tender-cum-auction sale notice was ordered on condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amount demanded, to the third respondent and the said order was extended till 06.01.2011. Seeking to modify the order dated 08.10.2010, the writ petitioner filed M.P. (MD) No.3 of 2010 and in the said Miscellaneous Petition, by order dated 23.12.2010, status quo was directed to be maintained and it was further observed in the said order that even if the tractor and trailor are put on auction, the same shall not be confirmed and the same shall not be handed over to the auction-purchaser. 5. The third respondent bank filed M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 seeking to vacate the interim order of status quo dated 23.12.2010 and by order dated 03.03.2011, the Vacate Stay Petition was allowed and the Stay Petition and Modification Petition were dismissed. Challenging the order passed in the Modification Petition and the Vacate Stay Petition, these writ appeals are filed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is that since the appellant/writ petitioner owns only 4 acres of land, he has to be termed only as a "small farmer" and as a "small farmer", if the loan has been secured upto the year 2007, then, he is entitled for waiver of the entire loan. 7. However, the stand of the third respondent bank is that as per the Waiver Scheme, irrespective of the extent of land owned by a borrower, if the loan secured is more than Rs.50,000/-, the concerned borrower has to be treated as "other farmer" and as far as the appellant/writ petitioner is concerned, he had secured loan to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs; consequently, he has to be termed only as an "other farmer". Relying on Clause 6 of the Waiver Scheme which reads as follows: "6. Debt Relief: 6.1 In the case of "other farmers", there will be a one time settlement (OTS) Scheme under which the farmer will be given a rebate of 25 per cent of the 'eligible amount' subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of 75 per cent of the 'eligible amount' provided that in the case of revenue districts listed in Annex-I, 'other farmers' will be given OTS rebate of 25 per cent of the 'eligible amount' or Rs.20,000, whichever is higher, subject to the condition that the farmer pays the balance of the 'eligible amount'. the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has contended that since the appellant/writ petitioner has secured loan for more than a sum of Rs.50,000/-, he has to be termed as an "other farmer"; under such circumstances, he is entitled for the rebate of 25% of the loan secured by him provided he pays 75% of the balance due. 8. Though this stand has been disputed by the learned counsel for the third respondent bank, since clause 6 of the Waiver Scheme is very clear in terms, we are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the third respondent bank. According to the learned counsel for the third respondent bank, till date, the tractor and trailor are also in possession of the third respondent bank only. 9. In view of the above, the appellant/writ petitioner is given eight weeks time to deposit 75% of the balance due within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the said amount is paid by the appellant/writ petitioner in time, the third respondent bank is directed to give a rebate of 25% of the loan amount. But, in the event of failure on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner in depositing 75% of the balance due as aforesaid, the third respondent bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction and observation, W.A. (MD) No.390 of 2011 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 In view of the judgment rendered in W.A. (MD) No.390 of 2011, there is no need to pass orders in W.A. (MD) No.391 of 2011. Hence, W.A. (MD) No.391 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1 The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District 2 The Inspector of Police Vasudevanallur Police Station Vasudevanallur Sivagiri Taluk Tirunelveli District +2ccs to Mr.K.K.Kannan, Advocate SR.No.12624 & 12625 W.A. (MD) Nos.390 and 391 of 2011 01.04.2011 cad PA/03.05.2011/4P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/