IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16420 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIMALADEVI,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA,RAMANEZHUTH HOUSE, PANANGAD AMSOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. POOVATHUMKADAVU FARMERS SERVICE, CO-OPERATIVE BANK,P.O. PANANGAD, KODUNGALLUR. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, (GENERAL),KODUNGALLUR. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICERS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KODUNGALLUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, KERALA KARSHAKA KADASWASA COMMISSION, ANAYARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16420 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that in February, 2002, she had availed of a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from the 1st respondent Bank. Default was committed, and in the arbitration proceedings award was passed and execution proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner submits that the amount that was sought to be recovered is Rs.9,94,581/-. It is stated that in the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for waiver of the liability, in terms of the provisions contained under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. It is stated that by Ext.P4, the application was rejected stating that the loan availed was not an agricultural loan, and that Ext.P5 attachment notice was issued for realising an amount of Rs.11,23,307/-. 2. According to the petitioner, based on Ext.P6 news report, he again made Ext.P7 application for waiver, and that the same is under consideration of the 4th respondent. In the meanwhile, he has WP(C) No.16420/2009 -2- filed Ext.P9 before the 2nd respondent requesting to defer further coercive action pursuant to Ext.P5 till orders are passed on Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, while Ext.P9 remains unattended, further action is being proceeded on the basis of Ext.P5. It is with this complaint, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Having regard to the submissions made as above, I feel that at this stage, the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed, if Ext.P9 is considered by the 2nd respondent. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg