IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22789 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE MOONNILAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K.163, MOONNILAVU.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. LILLY ABRAHAM, VAYAMPALLIL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU.P.O, THALAPPALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. V.A.ABRAHAM, VAYAMPALLIL HOUSE, MOONILAVU.P.O, THALAPPALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. GEORGE JOSEPH, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, VALAKAM, MECHAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 586. 4. ELIAMMA JOSEPH, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, VALAKAM, MECHAL.PO., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 586. 5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. KERALA STATE FARMER'S DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C)No.22789 of 2008-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, a co-operative bank has filed this writ petition aggrieved by certain actions taken by the 6th respondent Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission on applications filed by respondents 1 to 4. The plea of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 4 are not agricultural debtors and the debts are not agricultural debts. It is still further contended that they are not agriculturists. It is also the contention of the petitioner that arbitration awards have become final as against respondents 1 to 4 and the Debt Relief Commission has acted without authority in passing the orders impugned and entertaining the proceedings sought to be stayed. It is not a matter in dispute that as of now, the WP(C)22789/08 -: 2 :- petitioner has not appeared before the Debt Relief Commission and therefore, it is unnecessary for this Court to sit in judicial review on the allegations since the first opportunity that the petitioner has is to move the DRC by stating its case on facts, including on the alleged non-applicability of the Debt Relief Scheme and thereby seek indulgence of the Commission to vacate the interim orders and reject the applications of respondents 1 to 4. Without that being done, I do not find any ground to entertain this writ petition at this point of time. This writ petition is hence dismissed without prejudice to what is stated above and the contentions of parties. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/290708