C. W. P. No. 20634 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. W. P. No. 20634 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 08, 2008. Mukhtiar Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Union of India and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. This petition seeks a direction for reframing or amending the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (for short, “the Scheme”), Annexure P-5, which was introduced for waiver of certain loans, by including all debtors. Further prayer is to declare Clause 4.1 of the Scheme, which lays down categorywise relief as ultra vires, on the ground of quantum of unreasonableness. 2. Case of the petitioners is that they are account holders of Fatehgarh Sahib Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and have repaid the debt. The Scheme gives rise to tendency of default in payments. The Scheme envisages classification of debtors as marginal, small or other farmers, which is without having regard to the fact that the need of waiver is more C. W. P. No. 20634 of 2008 2 for big farmers also. Reliance is placed on a survey conducted by journalists on the issue, in the areas in which suicides were committed. The pattern, emerging from the surveys shows that the maximum suicides were committed by big farmers. The Scheme does not give any benefit to the debtors who have repaid their debts and rather gives benefit to those, who have not repaid their dues. The policy, thus, does not achieve the objective for which the Scheme purports to have been introduced. 3. We are unable to find any ground for interference. It is well settled that this Court does not interfere in policy matters unless violation of any law or any legal right is shown. In the field of economic activities, higher flexibility has to be allowed to the policy makers. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Garg v. Union of India and others, (1981) 4 SCC 676, play in joints has to be allowed to deal with the complex problems, which do not admit solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula. In State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., AIR 2005 SC 1646, after referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Garg (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the observation of Frankfuter, J. in Morey v. Daud, (1957) 354 US 457, to the following effect :- “In the utilities, tax and economic regulation cases, there are good reasons for judicial self-restraint if not judicial deference to legislative judgment. The legislature after all has the affirmative responsibility. The Courts have only the power to destroy not to reconstruct. When these are added to the complexity or economic regulation, the uncertainty, the liability to error, the bewildering conflict of the experts, and the number of times the judges have been overruled by events, C. W. P. No. 20634 of 2008 3 self-limitation can be seen to be the path to judicial wisdom and institutional prestige and stability.” “Their Lordships further observed that the Courts ought to adopt a pragmatic approach in solving problems rather than measuring the propositions by abstract symmetry. The exact wisdom and nice adaptations of remedies may not be possible. Even crudities and inequities have to be accommodated in complicated tax and economic legislations.” 4. In a recent order of this Court dated 10.09.2008, in Ajmel Singh vs. Union of India and others, similar question was examined with reference to the Scheme i.e. the cut off date for eligibility. It was observed :- “The cut off date is a matter of policy unless shown to be irrational. The date of sanctioning of loan cannot be said to be irrelevant date for determining the category of debtors. There is bound to be some people on one or the other side of the cut off date. We are unable to hold that the cut off date fixed in the policy for waiver of loans cannot be struck down on the ground that the date of coming into force of the Scheme could also be a relevant date for waiver of loan. The law on the point is settled and reference can be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn. AIR 2001 SC 1447 (Paras 18 to 20), G. B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council AIR 1991 SC 1153 (Para 14), Reliance Airport C. W. P. No. 20634 of 2008 4 Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1 (Para 58), Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3400 (para 28) and Ramrao v. AIBC Bank Employees Welfare Association, AIR 2004 SC 1459 (paras 31 to 33).” 5. Question as to whether big farmers ought to be given debt waiver, is a matter of policy. Mere fact that small farmers or marginal farmers have been given benefit, does not by itself, create any right for the big farmers. Further question that the objective of the Scheme to give benefit to farmers who are committing suicide on account of debts is not achieved, can also not be gone into by this Court. Survey relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted to be conclusive. 6. We do not find any ground to entertain this petition. 7. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 08, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE