IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 17419 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALSALA K.S., W/O. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, IRUMBANATH HOUSE, KARTHIKAPURAM P.O., ALAKODE AMSOM, ARANGAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEAR AKG HOSPITAL, THALAP, KANNUR-2, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, ALAKODE, ALAKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: shg/ C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1. The petitioner was sanctioned with an agricultural loan from the 1st respondent Corporation to the tune of Rs.1,49,600/- as per Ext.P1 proceedings. According to the petitioner by utilising the loan amount she had purchased 85 cents of property comprised in Ext.P2 sale deed which was mortgaged in favour of the 1st respondent Corporation by executing a registered mortgage deed. As per the terms of Ext.P1 order the loan amount was to be repaid in 108 monthly installments or in 17 half yearly installments along with interest. According to the petitioner the loan amount could not be repaid since the petitioner's daughter became seriously ill and huge amounts were spent for her treatment. Inspite the petitioner had repaid an amount of Rs.15,870/-. It is also stated that certain properties belonging to the husband of the petitioner was also sold W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -2- much before availing the loan as per Ext.P4 agreement in order to raise money for treatment of the daughter. 2. While so, the petitioner had received Ext.P6 demand notice issued by the 1st respondent calling for repayment of the entire amount under the loan account. Thereafter the petitioner was issued with a further notice as evidenced by Ext.P7 in which she was requested to pay an amount of Rs.2,22,388/- on or before 15.06.2009 on the allegation that the facility of the loan sanctioned to the petitioner was cancelled because the petitioner had submitted false informations in the loan application. Thereafter the petitioner had also received another notice evidenced from Ext.P8 issued by the Sub Registrar concerned (2nd respondent) demanding payment of differential Stamp Duty with respect to the execution of the mortgage deed, which was originally exempted from payment of Stamp Duty. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 to P8 demand notices in this writ petition. W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -3- 3. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is contended that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that her husband was in ownership and possession of 1 acre 30 cents of land at the time when she made application for availing the loan under the particular scheme. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste and her husband does not belongs to Scheduled Caste. As per provisions in the scheme which is formulated for providing assistance to the members of Scheduled Caste, for purchase of agricultural property, various eligibility criteria were fixed. The petitioner was selected since she is a person having land only up to 10 cents. Subsequent to sanctioning of the loan, complaint was received at the Vigilance Department of the State Government alleging that the husband of the petitioner is having property of 1 acre 40 cents and on enquiry it is revealed that the husband of the petitioner is the owner of 1 acre 40 cents of land out of which he had gifted 10 cents to the petitioner. It is revealed that the petitioner while applying for the benefit W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -4- under the scheme had suppressed details regarding property owned by her husband. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Minister for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development had stayed cancellation of the loan as per order dated 02.08.2004 and directed the 1st respondent to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. Accordingly the Managing Director of the Corporation conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Government and on the basis of the report, the Principal Secretary to the Department of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Development had ordered cancellation of the loan, as per Annexure R1 (a) proceedings. It is also stated that before cancellation of the loan the petitioner was issued with a notice and was given opportunity of hearing. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that the property of her husband was agreemented for sale to another person receiving advance amounts out of the sale consideration, at the time when the loan was availed. The said fact was taken into consideration by the authorities before issuing W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -5- the proceedings of cancellation. 5. The guidelines of the scheme in question is produced as Ext.R1 (b) which enumerates the eligibility conditions to the effect that, the applicant's family shall not possess more than 25 cents of land. Therefore contention of the respondent is that, there is clear evidence regarding submission of false information by the petitioner, at the time of availing the loan. Hence the cancellation was totally justified and the petitioner is liable for payment of the entire amount outstanding in the loan account along with stamp duty with respect to the registration of the mortgage deed, is the contention. 6. Considering rival submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the husband of the petitioner was in ownership of property having extent of 1 acre and 30 cents during the time when the petitioner had submitted application and the loan was sanctioned. The contention of the petitioner is that the said property was under agreement for sale and the petitioner's husband had W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -6- received part payment of the sale consideration. But the same will not absolve the petitioner from the guilt of suppression of the material fact. It is clear that if ownership of the property owned by the husband would have been revealed, the loan would not have been sanctioned in the name of the petitioner, because she would not have come within the eligible category. Hence allegations regarding suppression of material facts for getting the loan under the particular scheme is evident. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere or to cancel the order issued by the respondents. Consequently the petitioner is liable to effect refund of the amount availed. 7. However, considering the situation that the petitioner belongs to lower financial strata of the Society and she be a member of the Scheduled Caste, and also particularly considering the fact of huge amount required for treatment of her daughter. I feel that some indulgence can be shown for permitting the petitioner to pay off the liability within the reasonable time in installments. W.P.(C)No. 17419 of 2009 -7- 8. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to restrain from taking any coercive streps of recovery for realisation of the amounts demanded under Exts.P6, P7 & P8, if the petitioner makes payment of the said amount in ten (10) equal monthly installments starting on or before 15.11.2009 and on or before the 15th day of every succeeding month. C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE shg/