IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5165 of 2010 1. SHIVAJEE SINGH S/O LATE RAMEKBAL SINGH R/O VILL DHARAMPUR GANAILI, P.S.HARPUR, DISTT- MUNGER Versus 1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER FRASER ROAD, PATNA 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER UNION ABNK OF INDIA AT GANAILI, P.S.HARPUR, DISTT-MUNGER ----------- 3 16/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Bank. The petitioner claims himself to be a small farmer in terms of the definition given under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Waiver Scheme). There was borrowing from the respondent Bank for purchase of a tractor. Petitioner had been paying the instalments regularly to the Bank and there has been no dispute of any kind between the parties. After coming of the Waiver Scheme the petitioner based on news paper reports, was of the considered opinion that he is entitled to waiver of the loan and, therefore, stopped re- payment of the instalments fixed against him. Petitioner waited for the Bank to communicate to him their decision on the issue because some other persons had been given notice - 2 - and information asking them to seek waiver or O.T.S. (One time settlement) scheme as the case may be. When no communication was made to the petitioner, he approached the Bank by way of Annexure-7. Annexure-7 did not beget any response from the respondent Bank and, therefore, the present writ application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner there has to be complete waiver or writting off of the loans with regard to marginal or small farmers. With regard to yet another category there is provision for O.T.S. scheme. The Bank has arbitrarily, if not irrationally, not extended the benefit of waiver scheme of loan to the petitioner. The existence of the scheme is not an issue in the writ application. It is the applicability of the said scheme which is subject matter of dispute. Learned counsel representing Bank states that the magical date for deciding whether the petitioner is eligible for waiver is 31.12.2007. If on that date the petitioner was a defaulter, his loan was declared N.P.A. a suit was filed for recovery of the loan or the loan had been recalled, then the eligibility of the petitioner would have been there under the scheme. But the - 3 - statement of account of the petitioner would show that the petitioner has been paying back his instalments regularly and on 31.12.2007 the account did not suffer from any of the infirmities mentioned above. In fact, there was outstanding balance available on that date. If the petitioner was not a defaulter on 31.12.2007, then the benefit of waiver under the Debt Relief Scheme cannot accrue to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the waiver scheme has to be read in such a fashion that the object to provide benefit of the said scheme accrue to the small and marginal farmers. An interpretation ought to be given to the scheme to beget benefit to the marginal and small farmers and not to deny the same which the Central Government wanted to confer on such small and marginal farmers. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was tenable provided the scheme did not envisage the mechanism under which such waiver had to be granted. Waiver is not absolute but is conditional subject to all such persons fulfilling those criterias. The eligible amount for waiver has to be decided on the basis of cut off date which - 4 - was fixed on 31.12.2007 and if on that date the petitioner was not a defaulter or his account was not declared as N.P.A. then he does not get the benefit of waiver. The benefit of the scheme must arise from the scheme and no interpretation can be given contrary to what is envisaged or mechanism which has been laid down under the scheme. One thing, however, the Court must record before parting that the petitioner was misled to believe that the scheme was of the kind where a blanket waiver to all the marginal or small farmers was available and it was under this bonafide belief that he stopped paying the balance amount and the instalments which he was obliged to pay after the scheme was brought into effect. Because of that default now his tractor has been seized and the Bank is taking every coercive action against him. Keeping the status of the petitioner and his bonafide coupled with the misunderstanding of the reading of the scheme, the Court is of the opinion that the Bank should release his tractor in his favour on the condition that the petitioner shall undertake to pay back the instalments, may be in a re-structured manner or in the manner two parties agree - 5 - to. The Bank may even consider waiving interest for this period where default has been committed by the petitioner bonafidely. This writ application is disposed of with the direction aforesaid. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)