IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16105 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HARIKUMAR E.D., ERUMELILKAROTTU, LAKKATTOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOOROPPADA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOOROPPADA, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. BY Govt. Pleader Sri. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16115 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.16105 & 16115 OF 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Govt. Pleader for the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioners have availed of agriculture loans from the first respondent co-operative Bank. Default was committed and they applied for the benefit of the Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme 2008. Finally, by Ext.P5 in WP(c).No.16105/09 and similar order issued to the petitioner in WP(c).No.16115/09, the benefit was declined, on the ground that NABARD has refused to treat the loan availed of by the petitioners as agricultural loan. These orders were challenged before this court and Ext.P6 in WP(c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P3 in WP(c). No.16115/09 are the judgments rendered, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the matter. Accordingly the WP(c).Nos.16105/09 & anor. 2 matter was considered and by Ext.P7 in WP(c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P4 order in WP(c).No.16115/09 the 2nd respondent held that the petitioners are eligible for the benefit of the scheme. However, by Ext.P8 order in WP(c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P5 order in WP(c).N.16115/09, passed by the 2nd respondent, much later to the previous orders, it was held that since the loans in question were granted to the petitioners against the bye-laws in the first respondent society, the petitioners cannot be given the benefit of the scheme referred to above. It is there upon that these writ petitions have been filed challenging Ext.P8 in WP(c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P5 in WP(c).No.16115/09. 3. As a result of the impugned orders, the benefits which were granted in favour of the petitioners by Exts.P7 in WP(c). No.16105/09 and Ext.P4 in WP(c).No.16115/09 have been taken away and that too without even issuing notice to the petitioners or giving them an opportunity to make representation in the matter. Necessarily, therefore the WP(c).Nos.16105/09 & anor. 3 impugned orders deserve to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice and the matter needs to be reconsidered. 4. I should also mention that a reading of Ext.P8 in WP (c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P4 in WP(c).No.16115/09 shows that the only reason stated for holding that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of waiver is that the loan has been sanctioned against the provisions contained in clause 50-A of the bye laws of the Ist respondent. There is no findings that the petitioners are at fault or that they have contributed to the mistake. Therefore, the question is whether in such circumstances the petitioners are otherwise legitimately entitled to the benefit of the scheme can be deprived of the same. Although I am prima facie inclined to take a view favourable to the petitioners, having regard to the fact that the matter is being remitted I am not inclined to express further on the issue, and this issue is left to the 2nd respondent to consider. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of as WP(c).Nos.16105/09 & anor. 4 follows; 5. Ext.P8 in WP(c).No.16105/09 and Ext.P5 in WP(c). No.16115/09 will stand set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in these cases and taking into account the observations in this judgment, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with copy of the writ petitions before the 2nd respondent. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).Nos.16105/09 & anor. 5