1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1732 OF 1994 1] Pandurang Mahadu Tambe, Aged 50 years, Occu. Agriculturist resident of Georai Gundi, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 2] Yadav S/o Mahadu Tambe, Aged 60 years, Occu. Agri, R/o as above. 3] Sheshrao Mahadu Tambe, Aged 55 years, Occu. Agriculturist, resident of Georai Gundi, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. .. PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Copy to be served on Govt Pleader High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2] The Union of India, through Reserve Bank of India, Branch at Bombay, Copy to be served its Counsel at High Court Aurangabad. 3] The Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar Cooperative Societies M.S. Pune. 4] The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. 5] The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 2 6] Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Georai-Gundi, Tqluka Sillod, District Aurangabad through its Chairman. ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri. N.R. Salunke , Advocate for Petitioners. Shri V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for respondents State Shri A.B. Kharosekar for respondent No.6 CORAM :- B.R.GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE : 9th MAY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) Heard respective counsel for the parties. The petitioners impugn communication dated 10/05/1993, which states that the petitioners are not entitled for the debt relief as per the scheme framed by the Government of Maharashtra. 2. The Predecessor of the petitioners had availed loan for agricultural purpose from the Vividh Karyakari Seva Society on 27/01/1986 for cultivation. The petitioners are legal heirs of the said predecessor. On 02/10/1989 the Government had promulgated the Maharashtra State Agricultural and Rural Debt Relief Scheme and as 3 per the said scheme, the petitioners claimed that they are entitled for the waiver of loan to the extent of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The respondent has contended that the petitioners have not approached before the authorities within the stipulated period and they have not applied as such, their case could not be considered. 4. Perusal of scheme would show that it was the duty of the respondent to grant relief, if otherwise the petitioners are entitled to. The respondents no where state that borrower was not eligible for the said scheme. The scheme mandates the respondent to grant debt relief up to Rs. 10,000/- to a borrower ,more particularly vide clause 3 of the said scheme. 5. In the light of above, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and it is held that the petitioners predecessor inter-alia the petitioners are entitled for waiver of debt to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- as on notified date. 4 The petitioners have deposited Rs. 2500/- in this Court pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. The Registry is directed to remit the same along with interest if any to the respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 6 is directed to give adjustment of said amount in the loan amount of the borrower. 6. Rule made absolute, however, there shall be no orders as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [B.R.GAVAI, J ] SDM* 1732.94 WP