IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 35887 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. JALAJA RAMACHANDRAN, KAKKATTIL HOUSE NEDUNGAPPARA, VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM 2. RAMACHANDRAN, KAKKATTIL HOUSE NEDUNGAPPARA, VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. P.P.PATHROSE, PATTAPURATHPULLEN, NEDUNGAPPARA, ERNAKULAM. 4. P.P.ANTONY, PATTAPURATHPULLEN NEDUNGAPPARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SMT.V.H.JASMINE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. NEDUNGAPPARA SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD. NO.E.135, VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT CO.OP.BANK, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES(G) ERNAKULAM. 4. NATIONAL BANK FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.37778/08 AND 14107/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.35887/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY FIRST PETITIONER FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LOAN AVAILED OF BY SECOND PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY THIRD PETITIOENR FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY FOURTH PETITIOENR FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEBT WAIVER SCHEME ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT 23.5.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPODNENT DT 18.7.08. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPODNENT DT 29.9.2008. EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY FIRST PETITIONER FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIION OF THE ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF the LOAN AVAILED BY SECOND PETITIOENR FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BYT HIRD PETIITOENR from the FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ACCOUNT EXTRACT OF THE LOAN AVAILED BY FOURTH PETITIOENR FROM THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPODNENT ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIOENR DT 28.11.2008. EXT.P13: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER DT 28.11.2008. WPC NO.35887/08 -2- EXT.P14: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITIONER DT 28.11.2008. EXT.P15: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPODNENT ISSUED TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER DT 28.11.2008. EXT.P16: TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE LOANS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT 8.7.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 35887, 37778 OF 2008 & 14107 OF 2009 ========================= Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T The facts of the cases being identical and the respondent Bank being common, these cases are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions being agriculturists, had availed of agricultural loans from the respondent Bank under the Kissan Cash Credit Scheme. According to the petitioners, default was committed and while so, the Government of India announced the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Subsequently, the petitioners applied for the benefit of the scheme and the Bank rejected the requests so made. The reason stated by the Bank is that much prior to the introduction of the scheme as early as on 22/6/07 itself, the loans availed of by the petitioners were renewed. It is stated that therefore the case of the petitioners do not come within the parameters of the scheme and hence they were ineligible for the benefit. WPC 35887, 37778 OF 2008 & 14107 OF 2009 :2 : 3. It needs to be clarified in this context that in so far as the first petitioner in WP(C) No.35887/08, Smt.Jalaja Ramachandran is concerned, the Bank admits her eligibility for the benefit of the scheme. 4. Referring to the passbooks issued by the Bank, the other petitioners dispute the assertion made in the counter affidavit that the loans were renewed by the Bank. It is stated that the KCC scheme, the benefit of which was availed of by them, was subject to the conditions issued by the Bank, which inter alia required that the loans should be renewed before 31st of the ensuing year. It is stated that they do not make any application for renewal of the loan and therefore the Bank had no occasion to have renewed the loans. It is on this contention the petitioners are claiming the benefit of the scheme. 5. Evidently, this discloses a seriously disputed question of fact and in my view, this is not an issue that can be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy in my view available to the petitioners is to pursue the matter invoking proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- WPC 35887, 37778 OF 2008 & 14107 OF 2009 :3 : operative Societies Act. 6. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits and leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the matter as above, the writ petitions are disposed of. It is directed that if the petitioners move the authorities within 3 weeks, the Joint Registrar shall take expeditious steps for the disposal of the proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp