IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 5363 of 2010(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- B.JAGATHAMMA, CHANDRA BHAVAN, KAZHAKKUTTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA STATE, PIN-695582. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE BANK OF MYSORE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BRANCH, BRNCH CODE 40453, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.K.R.SUNIL, CGC FOR R1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5363 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner owns 84 ares of land cultivated with coconut, banana, arecanut etc. It is stated that for putting up fencing around the plot, development of the plot and plantation, she submitted Ext.R2(a) application to the respondent Bank for availing of an agricultural loan. The Bank finally sanctioned a loan of Rs.5.5 lakhs, out of which, Rs.2.5 lakhs was disbursed to the petitioner. She says that though she made certain repayments, Rs.1.89 lakhs was remaining unpaid. 2. It was at that time, the Government of India announced Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. Petitioner applied for the benefit of the scheme. However, her application was rejected by the Bank by Ext.P3 on the ground that she was released a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs for fencing/compound wall and that the said loan is not covered by the provisions of the scheme. It is challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the Bank to extend the benefit of the scheme, the writ petition was filed. WPC No. 5363/10 :2 : 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Bank producing various documents. According to the Bank, loan sanctioned to the petitioner was for fencing/compound wall, development of plot and for development of plantation. Ext.R2(a) is the loan application submitted by the petitioner. ExtR2(b) is the sanction order, where it is stated that, for construction of compound wall, Rs.3,42,500 was sanctioned. Ext.R2(c) is stated to be the estimate of the compound wall construction work, which according to the Bank was submitted by the petitioner. Ext.R2(d) contains the details of the scheme announced by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services and Ext.R2(e) and (f) are its clarifications. On this basis, Bank states that the amount disbursed to the petitioner was for construction of compound wall and that the same is not covered by the provisions of the scheme. 4. Counsel for the petitioner referred to the reply affidavit and contended that the loan applied for by the petitioner was for the construction of fencing and agricultural purposes. It is stated that the petitioner did not apply for any loan for construction of compound wall, which submission again is disputed by the Bank. 5. First of all, going by the documents produced by the WPC No. 5363/10 :3 : Bank, it would appear that the application made by the petitioner was for construction of fencing around the plot of land owned by her and also for development of the plot and plantation. It is seen that based on Ext.R2(c) estimate, Ex.R2(b) sanction order was issued by the Bank. In that sanction order, which also carries the signature of the petitioner, separate amounts have been sanctioned for the construction of compound wall, development of plot and for development of plantations respectively. From the endorsement made in Ext.R2(c), the estimate, it is seen that Rs.2.5 lakhs disbursed to the petitioner is towards fencing/compound wall construction. Therefore, on the materials produced by the Bank, though the petitioner disputes of having made application for compound wall construction, it is seen that the amount disbursed was the amount sanctioned towards compound wall construction. 6. As already stated, Ext.R2(d) (e) and (f) are the waiver scheme and its clarifications. Going by the provisions of the scheme, the amount sanctioned for fencing, compound wall construction etc., are excluded from the benefit of the scheme. If that be so, the position that emerges is that, prima facie, the WPC No. 5363/10 :4 : amount disbursed is a part of the loan sanctioned for compound wall construction, which does not get the coverage of the waiver scheme. In that view of the matter, on the materials produced, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with the Bank for having issued Ext.P3. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp