IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4001 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SRI.RAJU M THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS AGED 36 YEARS, MALAMEL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O, KONDUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. BY ADV. MR.T.V.GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL OFFICER, (AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND RELIEF SCHEME 2008 MEENACHIL EAST, URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, POONJAR EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.4266, POONJAR , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER POONJAR EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK,POONJAR. R2 BY ADV. MR.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL, R3 BY MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4001/2009-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 08/09/06 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10/10/06 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 28/03/07 IN CASE NO. 617/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 19/06/07 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER (ARBITRATOR) MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., THEKKEKARA., POONJAR. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER DTD. 04/08/08 PASSED BY THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION CIRCULAR 1/2008 DTD. 28/05/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.4001 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be an agriculturist, having 4.5 acres of land. He made an application to the 2nd respondent for financial assistance under the Haritha Cash Credit Scheme. Cash credit facility with an upper limit of Rs.2 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner on 13.7.2005 and was disbursed on 19.7.2005. It is stated that, unlike the usual loan granted by the financial institutions with monthly payment of instalment consisting of principal and interest, this scheme is more in the nature of an overdraft facility and the petitioner was entitled to draw amount up to Rs.2 lakhs, with liability to pay interest on quarterly basis. The credit facility was granted for a period of 3 years. WP(c).No.4001/09 2 2. Petitioner committed default in paying interest and Exts.P1 and P2 notices issued in this behalf did not evoke any response. Finally, the Bank filed ARC.No.617/07 resulting in Ext.P4 award dated 19.6.2007. In the award a decree enabling the Bank to recover Rs.2,38,224/- with interest at 12% on Rs.2 lakhs from 19.7.2005 was passed. Even thereafter payment was not made and in the meantime, the Government of India introduced Agricultural Debt Waver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, a copy of which is Ext.R2(a). On 30.7.2008, petitioner submitted a representation to the first respondent, claiming the benefit of the said scheme. The claim was considered and by Ext.P5, the benefit was declined. It is there upon that this writ petition is filed, challenging Ext.P4 and claiming the benefit of Ext.R2(a) scheme referred to above. 3. Relying on the various provisions of Ext.R2(a), counsel for the petitioner contends that, the loan availed of by him was an investment loan and that the petitioner being a small farmer, having less than 2 hectors of land, was eligible WP(c).No.4001/09 3 for the benefit of the scheme. It is also stated that, the liability due from him satisfied the conditions provided in clause 4.1(b) of the scheme, in as much as it was disbursed prior to 31st March, 2007 and was remaining unpaid till 29.2.2008. It is therefore contended that, the view taken in Ext.P5 is that the amount was overdue only as on 19.7.2008 is incorrect. 4. On behalf of the respondent Bank, the contention raised is that the period of credit facility expired only on 13.7.2008. Therefore, according to them, the amount was not overdue as on 31st December,2007, in which event only the petitioner can claim the benefit of Ext.R2(a) scheme. 5. I have considered the submissions made. The argument of the petitioner is that, although 3 year period specified at the time of sanctioning loan expired only on 31.7.2008, the Bank obtained Ext.P4 award on 19.6.2007 and since the petitioner did not pay the amount due under the award, the amount due under the award was remaining WP(c).No.4001/09 4 outstanding as on 31st December, 2007 and therefore the petitioner comes within clause 4.1(b) of Ext.R2(a) scheme. Going by the Scheme, the amount should be disbursed prior to 31st March, 2007 and the petitioner satisfies this condition in as much as the loan was sanctioned and disbursed on 19.7.2005. 6. The second requirement is that the amount should be overdue as on 31st December 2007. Since the period of loan facility granted to the petitioner was 3 years, the period expired only on 13.7.2008. If that be so, the petitioner cannot say that his liability was overdue as on 31st December, 2007. On the other hand, if the liability is to be taken one under Ext.P4 award, in my view the petitioner will not be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. This is for the reason that waiver contemplated in Ext.R2(a) is the waiver of the agricultural debt and not a debt arising under a award. If that be so, the debt under the award cannot be equated as an agricultural debt and such a debtor cannot calm the benefit of Ext.R2(a) WP(c).No.4001/09 5 scheme. If so, the petitioner cannot contend that as on 31st December, 2007, any agricultural liability was outstanding to be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P5 does not deserve to be interfered with. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.4001/09 6