IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24417 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJKUMAR.R,VILAYIL VEEDU, THEKKACHERI, KANJAVELI.P.O,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER,KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DISTRICT OFFICE,OPP.S.N.WOMENS COLLEGE,KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.24417 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: 1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to give relief to the petitioner under the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006. 2) To pass an order, writ or direction commanding the 1st respondent to extend the benefit of Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 to the small scale farmers who availed loan from Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation. 3) To issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper. It is admitted by the petitioner that loans availed from the Kerala State Backward Development Corporation will not come within the purview of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006. A representation submitted by the petitioner seeking reliefs under the W.P.(C).24417/2010 -2- above said Act has already been declined by the 2nd respondent, as per Ext.P2, observing that the loan availed by the petitioner from a Corporation owned by the Government will not come within the purview of the definition of “debt” under the above said Act. 2. Fact being so, I am of the opinion that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner is one coming within the domain of policy decisions of the Government. This court in writ jurisdiction cannot issue any directions to the effect of extending benefit of the said Act to any loans which is not falling within the purview of the said Act. It is for the petitioner to approach the Government seeking such reliefs, if so advised. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that mother of the petitioner, who is a guarantor with respect to the loan transaction had already approached this court in a writ petition, which was unsuccessful. She had also filed a Writ Appeal which is pending before the Division Bench. It is pointed out by the respondent that the petitioner had filed this writ petition without disclosing the W.P.(C).24417/2010 -3- above facts. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances as observed above, I am not inclined to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant any of the reliefs sought for. Hence the writ petition deserves no merit and the same is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner approaching the Government seeking appropriate reliefs. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb