IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28405 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.K. NARAYANAN, THEKKE KOYILANDY VALAPPIL, PURANKARA, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.JUBYRAJ.A.P RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SYNDICATE BANK, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, PIONEER TOWERS, SHANMUGHOM ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, 20/16, OPPOSITE BHAGAVATHI KOTTAKKAL TEMPLE, VADAKARA-673 101. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR BANK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28405/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VADAKARA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 10.11.06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19.8.08. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17.12.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE 2ND RESPODNENT DATED 9.1.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR DT 9.1.10. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETTIONER DATED 19.1.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS THROUGH ADV.HARIPRASAD TO THE PETITIONER DATED 7.10.11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28405 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner along with his wife had availed of a loan of `4,00,000/- from the 1st respondent Bank. Loan was availed of on 21/3/2007 mortgaging immovable property of 85 cents of land and the building therein. Default was committed and in the meantime, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was implemented. He claimed the benefit of waiver as per the scheme and that is rejected by Exts.P3 and P6. It is challenging these orders and seeking a direction for extending him the benefit of waiver, the writ petition is filed. 2. As is seen from the provisions of Clause 4 of the Scheme itself, the amount disbursed upto 31/3/2007 and overdue as on 31/12/2007 and remains unpaid until 29/2/2008 are alone eligible for benefit of waiver. As is seen from the impugned orders, loan was disbursed to the petitioner only on 21/3/2007 and the first instalment was payable on the expiry of one year thereafter. If that be so, though the loan was disbursed prior to 31/3/2007, no amount was overdue as on 31/12/2007 or WPC No. 28405/11 :2 : remaining unpaid until 29/2/2008. If that be so, petitioner does not satisfy the conditions of the scheme for claiming waiver. Therefore, the rejection of his request by the impugned orders cannot be said to be illegal. 3. Writ petition is dismissed. Needless to say that these orders will not prevent the petitioner from seeking his remedies before the appropriate forum. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp