IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25038 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MATHAI MATHEW, PULPRAIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTTAYAM. 3. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOTHANALLOOR BRANCH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.25038/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LOAN PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17.4.09 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20.4.09 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10.8.09 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER. R3(b):- COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R3(c):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RENEWAL APPLICATION. R3(d):- COPY OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME , 2008 BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 25038 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be an agriculturist. He claims to have obtained an agriculture loan of Rs.40,000/- from the respondents 2 & 3. The petitioner alleges that, in 2007, the Bank asked the petitioner to renew the loan by paying the interest overdue and petitioner complied with the same. Subsequently the Government issued an Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme, which would be applicable only to the loans which were overdue as on 31.12.2007. Petitioner claims the benefit of that scheme. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's loan also would have been overdue as on 31.12.2007, but for the fact that the Bank wanted the petitioner to renew the loan by paying the overdue interest. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 & 3 disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, petitioner has to come within the four corners of W.P.(C)No. 25038 of 2009 -2- the scheme so as to enable, claim the benefit under the Scheme. Admittedly as on 31.12.2007 the petitioner's loan was not overdue and therefore he cannot claim the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver Scheme is their contention. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. It is not as if the bank anticipated issue of the scheme and with an intention of denying benefit of that scheme to the petitioner asked him to renew the loan. The renewal of the loan is a normal banking practice. Unfortunately for the petitioner, he availed that benefit from the bank, as a result of which the petitioner's loan was not overdue as on 31.12.2007. In so far as petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of the scheme, he cannot now contend that had the loan not been renewed, he would have been eligible for the scheme. Therefore I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/