IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26476 of 2008 Between: 1 Duggineni Nageswara Rao, s/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. D.No. 1-65-1, Purushottampalli Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Duggineni Suri Babu, S/o. Nageswara Rao, R/o. D.No. 1-75, Purushottampalli Village, Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2 The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. 3 The National Bank for Agricultual Rural Development (NABARD), Rep by its Chief General Manager, D.No. 1-1-61, R.T.C. 'X' Roads, Hyderabad - 500 020. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the second respondent in not extending the benefit of debt waiver to the petitioners under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India and issue consequential direction to the respondents to extend the benefits of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008 scheme to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in not extending the benefit of debt waiver to the petitioners under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners assert that they are agriculturists and obtained loans from the 2nd respondent-Karur Vysya Bank Limited by pledging gold ornaments. The 1st respondent-Government of India introduced Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (for short “the Scheme”) waiving the debts of farmers whose loans are overdue by 31.12.2007 and remained unpaid till 29.2.2008 and that Scheme came in force with effect from 29.2.2008. According to the petitioners, as they obtained loans for the purpose of agriculture, they gave representations requesting the authorities to waive their loans under the Scheme, but their grievance is that the 2nd respondent refused to waive their loans stating that they do not come within the purview of the Scheme. From the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for both the parties and a perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Bank, it is clear that the petitioners had obtained loans by pledging gold ornaments, but it is not clear whether the loans obtained by them are for the purpose of agriculture or some other purpose. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Bank is hereby directed to enquire into the matter and decide as to whether the loans obtained by the petitioners are for the purpose of agriculture or any other purpose. If, ultimately, it is found that the loans obtained are meant only for the purpose of agriculture, the 2nd respondent-Bank may apply the Scheme and extend the benefit of debt waiver to the petitioners. Till the enquiry is completed and decision is taken in accordance therewith, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps”. In terms of the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ 04.12.2008 bcj