IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 27797 of 2010(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.KUNJUMON,S/O.MOIDUNNI, KOTTARAMPATTIL HOUSE,AGALI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SRI.S. RAJESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,PALAKKAD, PIN-679 501. 2. MANNNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD,MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD,PIN-678 582. 3. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD, PIN-678 582. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI, SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27797 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- The petitioner had availed an agricultural loan from the 2nd respondent bank by mortgaging properties having an extent of 6.32 Acres belonging to himself and his wife. According to the petitioner he suffered different set backs in the agricultural operations and repayments in the loan account became highly irregular. Pursuant to introduction of the Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, formulated by the Central Government, the petitioner was issued with a notice sent by the 2nd respondent bank, as per Ext.P2, calling upon him to appear for the purpose of availing benefits under the scheme. Aggrieved by the fixation of amounts due under the scheme, the petitioner had approached this court on an earlier occasion by filing WP(C).5162/10. Through Ext.P3 judgment the petitioner was relegated to approach the Grievance Redressal Officer of the 2nd respondent bank by submitting W.P.(C).27797/10 -2- suitable representation within a period stipulated thereunder. Pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment the petitioner had preferred Ext.P4 representation, which was replied through Ext.P5 notice. In Ext.P5 the petitioner was allowed benefit of waiver of interest/penal interest to the extent provided under the scheme and he was requested to remit the balance amount of Rs.3,63,745/- within 15 days thereof. According to the petitioner, the respondent bank has not considered full waiver of the amounts due under the loan account in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme which the petitioner was entitled. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 notice. 2. In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 it is specifically mentioned that in terms of Ext.P1 Debts Relief Scheme the petitioner was entitled for 'One Time Settlement' by remitting 75% of the outstanding amount. But the time limit fixed under Ext.P1 was only upto 30.6.2010. In fact the petitioner was called upon to avail the benefit by closing the loan within the said time. However, the petitioner has not turned up to avail such benefits and the scheme is not in operation since 30.6.2010 onwards. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to benefits offered under Ext.P5, is the contention. It is further stated that at present an amount of Rs.3,70,511/- is W.P.(C).27797/10 -3- overdue in the loan account in question. 3. From the facts as stated above, it is evident that the petitioner was entitled for getting the loan account written off, to the extent of 25% under the provisions of the scheme in question. It is evident that the petitioner was offered with the benefits under the scheme by virtue of Ext.P5. It is further evident that the petitioner had failed to avail such benefits. Therefore I find no merit in the contentions raised. However, it is noticed that by virtue of an interim order issued by this court on 17.9.2010, the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs.75,000/- against the arrears due. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court in permitting payment of the balance amount in a phased manner within a reasonable time, on the basis of specific undertaking that the petitioner is relinquishing all challenges and also the right to pursue any statutory remedy. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances I am inclined to grant relief to the extent of permitting the petitioner to make payment of the entire balance amount within a reasonable time in instalments. Accordingly the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps of recovery against the petitioner, provided the petitioner remits the entire balance outstanding in W.P.(C).27797/10 -4- the loan account along with interest if any accruing in 3 (three) equal monthly instalments falling due on or before 31.12.2010 and on or before the last day of the two succeeding months. 5. It is made clear that the above direction will not stand in the way of the petitioner claiming benefit under any other scheme, if introduced in the meanwhile. 6. It is also made clear that on the event of default in payment of any one of the amount as stipulated above, the respondents will be free to proceed with further steps of recovery. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb