IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15641 of 2009(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, APARNA ESTATE, KRISHNAGIRI, P.O.KOLAGAPPARA, WAYANAD. BY ADVS. MR.S.EASWARAN MR.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SULTHAN BATHERY. ADVS. MR.SATHISH NINAN FOR R2 MR.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R2 MR.P.J.PHILIP FOR R1 MR. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR -ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).15641/2009 ....................... Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner obtained an agricultural loan of Rs.60,000/- and an Agricultural Term Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 1997. There was default in the repayment of the loan. In the meanwhile, Ext.P2 Scheme was promulgated by the Central Government providing for various concession to farmers classified as 'small farmers', 'marginal farmers' and 'other farmers'. Classification is mainly dependent on the extent of the property which was available to the loanee and which was reflected in the loan documents that he must have submitted before the Bank for the purpose of loan. Petitioner's application was not considered on merits. In fact, Ext.P3 does not reflect a reference to any other aspects mentioned in the Scheme. Hence the writ petition praying for appropriate reliefs. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. W.P.(C).15641/09 2 3. The extent of concession that the applicant is entitled to is a matter which should be decided with reference to the Scheme. Therefore, if there is a grant of concession or denial of concession to an extent, reasons must be reflected in the communication to be issued by the Bank to the applicant. That is not seen to be done in Ext.P3. 4. Accordingly, 2nd respondent shall pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application, detailing the extent of the benefit that the petitioner is entitled to in terms of Ext.P2 Scheme. Ext.P3 shall not be treated as an order, that the Bank is expected to pass in this behalf, in terms of the Scheme. An order as above shall be passed by the concerned Officer of the Bank, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs