IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11331 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P. BABU, VAYALUMKAL, MADUKKA.P.O, ERUMELY NORTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SMT.SHALEENA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT (B) DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, POOJAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KORUTHODE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 513. ADV. SRI.K.S.DILIP FOR R2,3 GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C).11331/2011 ....................... Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i). to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Ext.P1 and quash the same to that extent it limit the benefit of scheme to loans which repayment time has expired on 31.3.2006 (ii). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 1st respondent to give the benefit of Ext.P1 Government Order for writing off loan availed by petitioner upto Rs.25,000/- from the 2nd respondent bank by allowing SBT to recoup the waived amount from Government (iii). To declare that the petitioner is entitled for writing off his loan upto Rs.25,000/- as per the condition in Ext.P1 excluding the time limit fixed as 31.3.2006 expiry of repayment time of loan W.P.(C).11331/2011 2 (iv). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation within a stipulated time period after hearing the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the second and third respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance projected with regard to the alleged discrimination between the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Communities and the benefits already granted to the Fishermen community, was a subject matter of consideration before this Court in W.P.(C).22760 of 2010(which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment), and that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 representation, seeking for similar benefits. W.P.(C).11331/2011 3 4. In the above circumstances, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case. The first respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent Bank, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs