IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37874 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROSAMMA, W/O.P.K.THOMAS, PADATHUPARAMBIL, MEENADOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE MEENADOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., K.401, MEENADOM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES FOR ARBITRATION AND EXECUTION, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), COLLECTORATE,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37874 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner had availed a loan from the second respondent bank in the year 1996. When the loan was not repaid, the bank filed ARC No.2800 of 2010 before the third respondent Arbitrator. The Arbitrator issued summons to the petitioner to appear on 26.11.2010. It is stated that upon receipt of the summons, the petitioner appeared before the third respondent and submitted that she is entitled to the benefit of loan waiver in terms of Circular No.1 of 2009, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P3. The petitioner states that the third respondent thereupon informed her that he will keep the arbitration case in abeyance and that in the mean while, the petitioner should move the first respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and obtain necessary orders from him. It is stated that the Arbitrator asked the petitioner to sign some papers and without knowing the contents, the petitioner affixed her signature on the bonafide belief that the third respondent will keep the arbitration proceedings in abeyance till a decision is taken by the first respondent. The petitioner submits that she thereafter submitted Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent requesting him to extend the benefit of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, W.P.(C) No.37874 of 2010 2 or in the alternative, to grant her the benefit of Ext.P3 circular. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 20.12.2010 seeking the following reliefs:- i) To call for the records relating to loan sought to be recovered as per Ext.P2 proceedings and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get waiver of the loan amount under the agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008 and to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay the loan amount claimed by the second respondent. ii) To direct the first respondent to give the benefit of Ext.P3 circular to the petitioner. iii)Direct the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 immediately and to keep in abeyance of the further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P2. iv)Stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P2 till the disposal of this writ petition. v)Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent, on instructions, submitted that the third respondent has passed an ex parte award against the petitioner. Further, paragraph 4.3 of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 states that the scheme will not nothing contained in the section shall apply to any loan disbursed by a lending W.P.(C) No.37874 of 2010 3 institution prior to March 31, 1997. The petitioner admittedly availed the loan in the year 1996. Therefore, she cannot claim the benefit of the said scheme. The second respondent bank has in ARC.No.2800 of 2010 sought recovery of the sum of Rs.79,487/- with future interest and costs. If the petitioner has a case that she was entitled to the benefit of Ext.P3 circular, her remedy is to raise a contention in that regard in the appeal which she is entitled to file from the award passed by the Arbitrator in the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.