IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 12972 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ APPAYYA NAIK, S/O. NARAYANA NAIK, CHEMBARIGE HOUSE, MADHUR.P.O.,KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, KASARAGODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRL. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, KASARAGODE. 2. SENIOR INSPECTOR,SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, KASARAGODE PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRL. & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK NO.FF 113,KASARAGODE. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12972/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.3.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 15.3.2005. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 17.3.2005. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.11.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.4.2006. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.3.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISUED BY THE BANK DATED 25.3.2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12972 OF 2009 (N) ===================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed of a loan from the 1st respondent Bank. Although, the loan availed of has been described by the petitioner as an agricultural loan, from the facts disclosed by the Bank, it is seen that the loan was not an agricultural loan, but was a vehicle purchase loan. 2. Accordingly, availing of a loan of Rs.4.10 lakhs on 30/3/96, petitioner purchased a tempo van. Going by Exts.P3 and P6, even according to the petitioner, what has been paid is only about 1.58 lakhs. Admittedly, therefore default was committed and Ext.P7 notice has been issued by the Bank for recovering an amount of Rs.7,22,351/- as on 25/3/2009 along with other charges. 3. Having regard to the fact that the term of the loan was five years and that interest payable upto 01/04/2004 was at 16.5% and thereafter at 12.5%, I am not inclined to think that there is anything irregular or illegal with Ext.P7 warranting to be interfered in this proceedings. WPC 12972/09 :2 : 4. Although, the petitioner claims the benefit of waiver as contemplated under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, having regard to the fact that the loan is not an agricultural loan, petitioner cannot claim the benefit of that scheme either. Petitioner has not succeeded in showing that there is any one time settlement scheme in vogue to claim the benefit of that scheme also. If that be so, Ext.P7 deserves to be upheld. 5. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner seeks an opportunity to get the liability liquidated by paying the amount in instalments. I heard the counsel appearing for the Bank also. 6. Having regard to the circumstances including financial constraints pointed out by the petitioner and his intention to discharge the liability, I am inclined to think that despite the defaults that have been committed, petitioner should be afforded an opportunity to discharge the liability. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the petitioner will be permitted to discharge the debt that is due to the Bank in 10 equal monthly instalments, the WPC 12972/09 :3 : first of which shall be paid on or before 30th of August, 2009 and the subsequent instalments on or before 30th of every succeeding month. (2) If payment is made as above, coercive action will be deferred and in case default is committed in paying any two instalments, the Bank will be free to continue the recovery proceedings in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp