IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 20242 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. SHAJI SEBASTIAN,PADINJEREPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,EDAMURAKU PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JESSY SHAJI,PADINJEREPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,EDAMURAKU PO,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANGER, NABARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALAI PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE MELUKAVU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MELUKAVU PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, POOVARANI SCB GROUP,THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETIES, MEENACHIL, PALAI PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20242 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners had availed of loans from the 4th respondent. Default was committed and Exts.P7 and P8, demand notices have been issued requiring the petitioners to remit Rs.6,68,725/- with other charges and Rs.6,32,719/- respectively with other charges. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the loans availed of were agricultural loans entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government of India and that the benefit of the said scheme ought to have been extended to them. It is stated that when they were denied the benefit, they moved the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent rejected their request by Exts.P2 and P2(a). It is stated that thereafter they have moved the 1st respondent by filing Exts.P3 and P3(a) and that it is in the meanwhile that Exts.P7 and P8 are issued. 3. In order to claim the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, the primary requirement is that the loan availed of should be agricultural loan. Exts.P5 and WPC 20242/09 :2 : P5(a) are the applications produced in this case which show that the loans were availed of for acquiring and storing pepper. If that be so, this was purely a commercial loan and cannot be characterised as an agricultural loan to claim the benefit of the debt relief scheme. 4. True the petitioners have a case that the purpose as shown in Exts.P5 and P5(a) were inserted subsequently and to defraud them. But then going by the applications, the purpose shown is as above and even if there is any substance in the claim of the petitioners, that is a disputed question of fact which cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Be that as it may, going by the applications, the purpose of the loan is not an agricultural loan and for that reason I cannot find fault with the decision taken by the Bank or the Grievance Redressal Officer. 6. Counsel for the petitioners lastly prays that they want to discharge the liability due under Exts.P7 and P8 and to avoid coercive action for the recovery of the dues. Taking into account this submission, it is directed that if the WPC 20242/09 :3 : petitioners remit the amount due under Exts.P7 and P8 in three equal monthly instalments, coercive action pursuant to Exts.P7 and P8 will be deferred. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 30th of July, 2009 and subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 30th of the succeeding months. It is made clear that in case default is committed in paying the instalments as above, respondents will be free to continue the proceedings. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp