IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3568 of 2011(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DEVASSIYA OUSEPH, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSIYA, THROMULLIL HOUSE, PERUMBALOOR. P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJIV.C.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MUVATTUPUZHA KOTHAMANGALAM PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.4389, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KANAYANNUR PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK GROUP. 3. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. R3 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M. IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST. SG. OF INDIA, ADV. SRI.P.ALI, ADDL.CGSC. R1 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3568 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an agriculturist. He had availed three different loans from the first respondent bank. When he defaulted repayment of the loan instalments, the bank issued Ext.P9 notice demanding repayment of the loan in full failing which he was informed that steps will be taken to sell the security without the intervention of the court under the provisions of Kerala State Co- operative Agricultural & Rural Development Banks Act, 1984. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 demand notice. He contends that he is entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and therefore Ext.P9 demand notice is liable to be quashed. 2. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner has not approached the first respondent bank claiming the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to any benefit under the said scheme is a matter which the bank will have to examined initially by the bank. Without moving the bank, the petitioner has WPC No.3568/2011 2 approached this Court seeking the benefit of the said scheme. The petitioner ought to have first moved the bank claiming the benefit of the scheme and should have approached this Court only if the bank declined to give him the benefits thereunder. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the first respondent bank seeking the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver & Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.3568/2011 3 WPC No.3568/2011 4