IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34446 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. V.C.DAS,VAISYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATHIRAPPALLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRAMOD KUMAR,S/O.V.C.DAS,AGED 42 YEARS, VAISYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,PATHIRAPPALLY.P.O, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,PATHIRAPPALLY BRANCH,PATHIRAPPALLY.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 521,REP.BY ITS MANAGER. 2. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPT.OF FINANCE,CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-1. R1 BY ADV. SRI. SATISH NINAN, SC, SBT R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34446 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners availed of loans of Rs.2 lakh each from the respondent Bank. Default was committed. They claimed the benefit of Ext.P1, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. In this writ petition, prayer sought is to quash Exts.P6 and P7 requiring the petitioners to remit the amounts due. This prayer is made on the basis that they are entitled to total waiver of their liability in terms of the scheme and that Bank has declined to extend the same. It is also their case that even the 25% waiver offered to them in Ext.P5 series also has not been given to them. 2. However, the facts disclosed from the submissions made by the standing counsel for the respondent Bank is that the loans availed of by the petitioners is for purposes including land development. It is stated that such loans are investment loans as defined in Clause 3.3(a) of Ext.P1. It is stated that where investment loan exceeding Rs.50,000 is availed of, the loanee is classified as other farmer in terms of Clause 3.7.3 and that such WPC No. 34446/10 :2 : loanees are entitled only to debt relief of 25% of the eligible amount as per Clause 6.1, provided the balance 75% is remitted by them. It is stated that in response to the claim made by the petitioners, by letter dated 27/3/2009, the Bank made such an offer to the petitioners and the petitioners did not remit the 75% balance, as a result of which, the benefit has been lost by them. 3. Thus, the submissions made by the Bank discloses that the petitioners were eligible only for debt relief of 25% provided 75% balance is remitted by them. In this case, admittedly such a condition has not been complied with by the petitioners, and if so, the petitioners cannot now claim either for 25% relief or for the total waiver of the liability as sought for by them. Even otherwise, when they received letter dated 27/3/2009 from the Bank, they also had a remedy of moving the Grievance Redressal Officer of the Bank, which also was not pursued by them. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the claims raised. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp