IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2011 / 26TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14845 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KUTTAN T., S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM, KUTTIPPURAM VIA., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M.V.INDIRADEVI, W/O.KUTTAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI - 110001. 3. SOUTH MALABAR GRAMIN BANK, KUTTIPPURAM BRANCH, KUTTIPPURAM - 679571, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R2 SRI.T.R.RAVI, SC, S.MALABAR G. BANK FOR R3 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14845 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF AGRICULTURAL DEBT WAIVER AND DEBT RELIEF SCHEME, 2008 AND THE GUIDELINES. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29.1.10 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29.1.10 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 16.7.10 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 22.3.10 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, KERALA FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).14845/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 17th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners availed loans from the respondent Bank under the Kissan Credit Card Scheme (KCC) for agricultural purposes. Default was committed and the Bank also approached the Civil Court by filing Suits for recovery of the amounts. Meanwhile Government of India declared the 'Agricultural Debt waiver and Debt relief Scheme, 2008'. Claiming the benefit of the said Scheme and waiver of the liability,the writ petition is filed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. Paragraph 3 and 4 of the statement it is stated thus:- It is submitted that the 1st petitioner had availed of two loans as KCC 680 and ODPC 57. KCC 680 was availed on 1.3.2006 for Rs.50,000/-. The amount due on the account was paid and the Loan account was closed on 27.3.2007 and fresh facility was availed on the same day as per the scheme. Since the account was not overdue on 31.12.2007, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Scheme. ODPC 57 is a personal consumption loan and does not fall within the category of loans which W.P.(C).14845/11 2 are taken into account by the Agriculturists Debt Relief Scheme. The 2nd petitioner had availed a loan as KCC 679 for Rs.20,000/- on 1.3.2006. She had paid the amount due on the loan and closed the account on 27.3.2007 and availed fresh loan of Rs.20,000/-. In this case also the loan account was not overdue on 31.12.2007 and the 2nd petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of the Debt Relief Scheme. With respect to all the above loans, this respondents has filed civil suits and the same have been decreed. 3. From the above, it is evident that the case of the respondent is that the Scheme is in relation to the liabilities which remain outstanding as on 31.12.2007 and that only such loans are eligible for the benefit of the Scheme referred to above. According to the Bank, prior to the said date, the previous loans were closed by the petitioners and fresh loans were availed of. Therefore, as on the relevant date, namely, 31.12.2007 loans availed of by the petitioners, were not remaining unpaid to claim the benefit of the Scheme. 4. Nothing has been produced by the petitioners to conclude that the stand taken by the respondent Bank is factually incorrect. W.P.(C).14845/11 3 5. In such circumstances, the claim raised in the writ petition has to be rejected and I do so. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested that the petitioners may be permitted to discharge the liability in instalments. 7. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Bank also in this regard. 8. Having heard both sides and also considering the request made, I direct that the petitioners will be permitted to discharge the liability outstanding in ten equal monthly instalments, first of which shall be paid on or before 15.9.2011 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 15th of every succeeding month. If any default is committed in paying any of the instalments, the Bank will be free to proceed with the recovery proceedings. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs