IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11691 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAINABA W/O. ABDUL KHADER, THOTTIPARAMBIL, PANAYIKKULAM, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KERALA FARMERS' DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KONGORPILLY FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.3847, BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE, MRS.VANAJA, KONGORPPILLY, PARAVUR TALUK 4. THE SPEICAL SALE OFFICER AND ARBITRATOR 1759, PARAVUR CO-OPERATIVE BANK GROUP OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) NORTH PARAVUR. BY GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 11691 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009 JUDGMENT Notice to first and second respondents dispensed with. Notice to third and fourth respondents dispensed with preserving their right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. The petitioner is one among the three defendants in ARC 4221 of 2006 that led to Ext.P4 judgment of the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal in R.P.91 of 2007. The petitioner herein was the first petitioner in that revision. Her husband Abdul Khader was the third petitioner. Second petitioner appears to be the son of the third petitioner in Ext.P4. The said order of the Tribunal issued after considering the entire evidence on record disclosed in words of the Tribunal that “ no scrap of paper has been produced to convince the fact that the matter in controversy comes within the purview of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission”. The Tribunal held that there is no evidence let in to convince that the defendants are agriculturists and the loan was availed for that purpose. Exts.A to D, the documentary evidence in that case WP(C) 11691 OF 2009 2 were relied on by the Tribunal to hold that the loan was availed for the purpose of paying back and for marriage. The Tribunal accordingly confined its interference to the quantum of interest by slashing the rate of interest to be without penal interest. I do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in that decision of the Tribunal. 3. With all the materials it will be unreasonable for this court now to assume that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Debt Relief Commission proceedings. However this court does not propose to conclude against the petitioner on that ground. 4. In the result, while leaving open the right, if any, of the petitioner to prosecute the matter if any pending before the first respondent, Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission, it is ordered that the execution of the impugned award would stand deferred, if amounts @ Rs.20,000/- per month is payable on or before the last working day of every month commencing from April 2009. If there is default in remitting any of the instalments as aforesaid, the benefit of this judgment will stand recalled WP(C) 11691 OF 2009 3 automatically. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/7/4