IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21746 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. VASU, S/O. CHAMAN, KIZHAKKEKALAM, KOSAVANKODE,TATTAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. P.BALACHANDRAN, SON OF PAZHANIMALA MANGODE KALAM TATTAMANGALAM. 3. P. GANGADHARAN, SON OF PAKAN PERINCHERRY, MANGODE, TATTAMANGALAM. 4. P.BAVADAS, SON OF PAZHANIAMALA, MANGOE KALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 5. P.PRAKASAN, SON OF PAZHANIMALA, DO-DO- 6. P.SASIDHARAN, SON OF PAZHANIMALA DO-DO- 7. SURESH S/O. RAGHAVAN, PERUMCHERRY TATTAMANGALAM. 8. MOHAMMADALI, SON OF JABBAR, METTUVALAN, NELLIKODE, TATTAMANGALAM, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.SASIDHARAN, SON OF PAZHANIMALA MANGOE KALAM, CHITTUR TALUK TATTAMANAGALAM, PALAKKAD. 9. K.VIJAYAN SON OF KUTTAN, PERUMCHERRY MANGOE, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 10. SUDEVAN, SON OF CHAMY, PERINCHERRY TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 11. SPINJUSHA WIFE OF MANIKANDAN, PALLATHAMPULLY TATTAMANGALAM. WPC 21746/09 -2- 12. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, SON OF MAYANKUTTY PALLATHAMPULY TATTAMANGALAM. 13. V.NANDAKUMAR, SON OF VELAYUDHAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, METTUPALAYAM,TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) SRI.M.A.AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 3. NABARD PONNIAM ROAD, P.B.NO.5613 STATUE TRIVANDRUM-695039 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 4. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P 502 P.O. TATTAMANGALAM-678102 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 5. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.P.502, P.O. TATTAMANGALAM-678102. 6. THE PALAKKAD DIST. CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD PALAKKAD REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21746 OF 2009 (K) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Thirteen petitioners who have availed of loans from the 4th respondent Bank for various purposes, have approached this Court challenging Ext.P18 series of orders passed by the 5th respondent rejecting their applications for the benefit of Ext.P14 scheme. 2. Ext.P14 is the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, which specifies the loans and other facilities, which are eligible for the wavier of the liability as provided in the Scheme. Ext.P1 application made by the first petitioner show that the purpose shown is milk vending and digging of well. Similarly, Ext.P2 application of 2nd petitioner shows the purpose as poultry, diary and land development. In so far as Ext.P3 of the 3rd petitioner is concerned, land development and diary are the purpose indicated. Similarly, in Exts.P4 and P5 by 4th and 5th petitioners, the purpose indicated is agricultural development and diary. Exts.P6, 11 and 13 applications made by petitioners 6, 11 and 13 respectively show that milk vending and poultry are the WPC 21746/09 :2 : purpose of the loans. Coming to Exts.P7 and P8 of petitioners 7 and 8 are concerned, milk vending alone is shown as the purpose. As far as Ext.P9 application of the 9th petitioner is concerned, marriage and land development and in Ext.P10 of the 10th petitioner, diary unit and poultry are the purpose shown. When it comes to Ext.P12 application made by the 12th petitioner, milk vending and land development are the purposes shown. Ext.P17 series of applications made claiming the benefit of Ext.P14 scheme read with Exts.P15 and P16 circulars have now been rejected by the 5th respondent as per Ext.P18. It is in this context the writ petition is filed. 3. The single sentence, and uniform reason stated in Ext.P18 is that the loans availed of by the respective petitioners do not come under the coverage of Ext.P14 scheme. A reading of the purposes shown in the application would show that, prima facie atleast some of the purposes for which loans have been availed of by the petitioners, would come within the scheme. For example, digging of well, diary, land development, agricultural development, poultry and diary unit are covered by Ext.P14 scheme and on a factual verification, if these are the purposes for WPC 21746/09 :3 : which loans are availed of and utilized, certainly atleast the extent to which amount has been availed of and spent for the purposes covered by the scheme, the Agriculturist should get the benefit also. 4. Since in Ext.P18 series, without specifying any reason, all the claims made by the petitioners have been rejected by a statement to the effect that the loans availed of by the petitioners are not covered by the scheme, I am inclined to think that the reasoning as shown in Ext.P18 cannot be upheld and that the matter needs to be reconsidered. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment before the 5th respondent along with a copy of the writ petition, he shall consider Ext.P17 series of applications made by the petitioners in the light of the purposes as shown in Exts.P1 to P13 and in the light of the provisions contained in Ext.P14 scheme referred to above. It is clarified that this Court has not considered the merits fo the claim raised and it is entirely for the 5th respondent to decide the claim. Petitioners may produce a copy of tis judgment before the WPC 21746/09 :4 : 5th respondent, who shall reconsider the matter in the light of what is stated above and with notice to the Bank concerned also. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp