IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10106 of 2011(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BALASUBRAMANNIAM.K, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KOIKKAL, PARVATHY BHAVAN, (KOIKKAT KRISHNA PRIYA), PERUNNA WEST, PANACHIKAVU.P.O, CHANGANACHERY - 686 102. 2. SUSHAMA .G. NAIR, RESIDING AT KOIKKAL, PARVATHY BHAVAN, (KOIKKAT KRISHNA PRIYA), PERUNNA WEST, PANACHIKAVU.P.O, CHANGANACHERY - 686 102. 3. SANJU BALU, RESIDING AT KOIKKAL, PARVATHY BHAVAN, (KOIKKAT KRISHNA PRIYA), PERUNNA WEST, PANACHIKAVU.P.O, CHANGANACHERY - 686 102. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA (O3104), CHANAGANACHERY ADB, RAJESWARI BUILDINGS, M.C. ROAD, CHANGANACHERY - 686 102. 3. AGRICUTLURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PAIPPAD, NALUTODY.P.O, PIN - 686 548. R2 BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10106 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Averments in this writ petition is that the agricultural loans availed by the petitioners from the 2nd respondent could not be repaid because of heavy loss sustained in agricultural operations due to natural calamities. According to the petitioners, the crops were insured with the 'Agricultural Insurance Company of India Limited' under a particular scheme, “The National Agricultural Insurance Scheme”, and the 2nd respondent Bank is at an obligation to write off the arrears on receipt of compensation from the Insurance Company. Since the 2nd respondent failed in such actions, the petitioners had approached the Banking Ombudsman, who in turn had directed the petitioners to approach the concerned authority of the Reserve Bank of India. Eventhough the petitioners submitted representation to the Reserve Bank of India, in Ext.P5 they were directed to approach the 2nd respondent Bank for redressal of grievances. According to the petitioners, they have approached the 2nd respondent in view of the directions contained in Ext.P5. But the 2nd respondent has not taken any favourable decision. Therefore they have submitted Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent. W.P.(C).10106/11 -2- Meanwhile the 2nd respondent has now issued Ext.P7 series demand notices and the petitioners are threatened with coercive steps of recovery. Under such circumstances, the petitioners seek direction for disposal of Ext.P6 representation and till then to restrain the recovery steps. 2. Heard; learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent Bank. It is stated that the claim for compensation raised by the petitioners before the insurance company was already declined since the damages occurred not within the covered period of the insurance policy. However, it is stated that the Bank had considered the request made by the petitioners in this regard and they were given reply stating the above facts, as early as on 6.10.2010. Since there is no scheme provided for waiver of the amounts due on the basis of the alleged loss of crops, the 2nd respondent is not in a position to write off the liability, is the contention. 3. I am of the considered opinion that the dispute raised by the petitioners could not be resolved by this court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since Ext.P6 representation is pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent, I am of the view that W.P.(C).10106/11 -3- interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued for an early disposal of the matter. 4. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioners, as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 5. In view of the directions issued as above, the 2nd respondent is directed to keep in abeyance any coercive steps of recovery for realisation of amounts in question, for a period of one month. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb