IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5226 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.AVARA HAJI, KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULIKKILIYAD.P.O., SREEKRISHNAPURAM VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGER, VIJAYA BANK, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. 678 582. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, RURAL PLANNING AND CREDIT DEVELOPMENT, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R1 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 5351 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 5226 & 5351 OF 2011 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner in WP(C) No.5351/11 availed of an agricultural loan from the respondent Bank on 20th of February, 2007. Similarly, the petitioner in WP(C) No.5226/11 availed of such a loan on 19/2/2007. They claimed the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008. The claims were ultimately rejected by the Bank on the ground that the loan availed of was not overdue as on 31st December, 2007 and remaining outstanding as on 29/2/2008 to be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. It is challenging these communications, these writ petitions have been filed. 2. Affidavits have been filed by the Bank where the aforesaid contention has been reiterated. 3. The stand taken by the counsel for the petitioners is that the loan was availed of on the aforesaid dates. It is contended that before December, 2007 no payment was made and therefore the loan was remaining outstanding. In that view, counsel contends that amount was due to the Bank in December, WPC Nos. 5226 & 5351/11 :2 : 2007 and therefore the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of the scheme. 4. First of all, the categoric stand taken by the Bank is that the loan was availed of for a period of one year and that amount became repayable on the expiry of the aforesaid one year period. It is on this basis, Bank contends that, as on 31st December, 2007, no amount was outstanding to be eligible for the benefit of the scheme. Apart from making the assertion in Court, the petitioners have not produced any document to indicate that, as on 31st of December, 2007, any amount was outstanding from them towards the loan availed of from the Bank. Unless this primary condition is satisfied, petitioners do not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down in Clause 4 of the above scheme, the benefit of which is claimed by them. In such circumstances, the rejection of the claim by the Bank cannot be said to be faulty warranting interference. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp