IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2712 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- THOMAS PAUL, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.A.M.PAUL, ARAMBANKUDIYIL HOUSE, THATTEKKAD.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KEERAMPARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.214, KEERAMPARA.P.O, KEERAMPARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682016. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. NABARD, KERALA REGIONAL OFFICE, PUNNAN ROAD, PB NO.5613,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2712/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 26.7.2008 SUBMITED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISPUTE REDRESSAL OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 26.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S LATE WIFE, TESSY TOMY TO DISPUTE REDRESSAL OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P1(b): TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 26.7.2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S SON ROY THOMAS BEFORE DISPUTE REDRESSAL OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 16.9.2008 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.9.2008 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S LATE WIFE. EXT.P2(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.9.2008 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S SON, ROY THOMAS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 1.8.2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 1.8.2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S LATE WIFE, TESSY TOMY. EXT.P3(b): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 1.8.2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER'S SON ROY THOMAS. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.10.09 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.32969/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2712 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, his deceased wife and his son had availed of three loans from the respondent Bank. Default was committed, and while so, Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 was introduced by the Central Government. Petitioner applied for the benefit, but however, that was declined by the Bank by Ext.P3 series of orders on the ground that the Bank had by its resolution dated 27/3/2007 had renewed the loan for the period from 01/04/2007 to 31/3/2008. The case of the petitioner is that he or the other loanees had not applied for any renewal and that the unilateral renewal of the loan by the Bank cannot deprive the loanees of the benefit of the scheme referred to above. 2. Bank has not placed anything on record to indicate that the renewal of the loan was on any application or other request made by the loanees. If that be so, the question is whether the unilateral decision of the Bank will deprive the loanees of the benefit of the Waiver Scheme referred to above. It WPC No. 2712/10 :2 : is seen that an identical case came up for consideration before this Court in WP(C) No.32969/2008 and by Ext.P4 judgment, this Court held as follows: 5. Then, the only question is whether the alleged renewal of loan granted by the Bank as mentioned in Ext.P5 could deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Ext.P3. Bank has no case that the renewal was on an application made by the petitioner. Further, it is also seen from Ext.P1, the loan agreement, that the period of the loan was three years. If that be the case, the period of the loan expired only in 2009, in which case, there was no reason or necessity for the Bank to have renewed the loan in 2007. If so, the fact that the loan has been unilaterally renewed as stated by the Bank can be no reason to deny the petitioner the benefit of Ext.P3. For that reason, I am not in a position to upheld Exts.P5 and P6 where the only reason stated for denying the benefit of Ext.P3 is the alleged renewal of the loan. 6. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 referred to above will stand set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P3 ignoring the alleged renewal of the loan for the period commencing from 01/04/2007. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 3. A reading of the above shows that the issue raised by the petitioner is fully covered in his favour and has to be answered in his favour. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 series of orders rejecting the application made by the petitioner for the WPC No. 2712/10 :3 : benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 and direct the 1st respondent Bank to pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner for the benefit of the Scheme. Orders shall be passed at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp