IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.16074 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.9.2008 Ajmel Singh. -----Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. M.P.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: This petition seeks quashing of explanation 1 to Clause 3 of Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”). The Scheme provides for waiver of debt or debt relief depending upon category in which the debtor falls. There is a total waiver of eligible amount of debt in respect of small or marginal farmers, as defined in Clause 3.5 and 3.6 of the Scheme. According to the explanation, the classification on the basis of land holding criteria is to be seen at the time of sanction of loan irrespective of subsequent changes in ownership or possession. CWP. No.16074 of 2008 Grievance of the petitioner is that on the date of taking of loan, the petitioner was not covered by the definition of “small farmer”, but subsequently, he had to sell his land to pay the loan and on the date of coming into force of the Scheme, he was covered by the definition of “small farmer” under Clause 3.6 of the Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that provision under explanation to Clause 3 of the Scheme fixing the date of sanction of loan as the cut off date for the eligibility, is arbitrary. We are unable to accept the submission. The cut off date is a matter of policy unless shown to be irrational. The date of sanctioning of loan cannot be said to be irrelevant date for determining the category of debtors. There is bound to be some people on one or the other side of the cut off date. We are unable to hold that the cut off date fixed in the policy for waiver of loans cannot be struck down on the ground that the date of coming into force of the Scheme could also be a relevant date for waiver of loan. The law on the point is settled and reference can be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd v. Delhi Admn AIR 2001 SC 1447 (Paras 18 to 20), G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Muncipal Council AIR 1991 SC 1153 (Para 14), Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India (2006) 10 SCC 1 (Para 58), Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1997 SC 3400 (para 28) and Ramrao v. AIBC Bank Employees Welfare Association, AIR 2004 SC 1459 (paras 31 to 33). 2 CWP. No.16074 of 2008 Dismissed. After arguing on merits, when we were not inclined to entertain the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks dismissal of the petition as not pressed. Dismissed as not pressed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 10, 2008 ( AJAY TEWARI ) ashwani JUDGE 3