IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3266 of 2010(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. VASU, S/O.CHAMAN, KIZHAKKEKALAM, KOSAVANKODE, THATTAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. 2. P.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, MANGODE KALAM, THATTAMANGALAM 3. P.GANGADHARAN, S/O.PAKAN, PERINCHERRY, MANGODE, THATTAMANGALAM 4. P.BAVADAS, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, 0 MANGODE KALAM, CHITTUR TALUK, THATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 5. P.PRAKASAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA. DO. DO. 6. P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA. DO. DO. 7. SURESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PERUMCHERRY, TATTAMANGALAM. 8. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.JABBAR, METTUVALAN, NELLIKODE, TATTAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.PAZHANIMALA, MANGODE KALAM CHITTUR TALUK, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 9. K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUTTAN, PERUMCHERRY, MANGODE, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 10. SUDEVAN, S/O.CHAMY, PERUMCHERRY, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. 11. SPINJUSHA, W/O.MANIKANDAN, PALLATHAMPULLY, TATTAMANGALAM. 12. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.MAYANKUTTY, PALLATHAMPULLY, TATTAMANGALAM. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.3266/2010 G 13. V.NANDAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, POOZHIKUNNAN HOUSE, METTUPALAYAM, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.S.EASWARAN, MR.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM), MR.M.A.AUGUSTINE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NABARD, PONNIAM ROAD, P.B.NO.5613, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 4. THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. P 502, P.O.TATTAMANGALAM-678 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL OFFICER, TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. P 502, P.O.TATTAMANGALAM-678 102, 6. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R1 BY ADV. MR. T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.3277 OF 2010 AND WPC.NO. 3295 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.3266, 3277 & 3295 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions are Agriculturists who are cultivating paddy and coconut in their respective agricultural lands. According to them, they are also conducting diary and poultry farms in a small scale. For their agricultural purpose, they had applied for and obtained loans from the fourth respondent, Bank. However, they allege that due to reasons beyond their control, the crops failed and consequently they suffered huge losses. Therefore, they have not been able to pay off the loans availed by them. The petitioners claim that they are agriculturists who are entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 which has been produced as Ext.P1. Therefore, they had submitted request for being granted the benefits of the said Scheme. However, the 5th respondent rejected their applications without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the action of the 5th respondent before this court in WP(C) 21746 of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 2 judgment setting aside the orders rejecting the applications of the petitioners and directing a reconsideration of their applications in accordance with the Scheme, Ext.P1. 2. Thereafter, the judgment of this court was communicated to the fifth respondent along with a copy of the petition. However, in spite of the directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment, the fifth respondent did not consider the applications of the petitioner. Instead, he forwarded the applications of the petitioner to the General Manager, Palakkad District Co-operative Bank for necessary action. The sixth respondent has thereafter issued orders rejecting the applications of the petitioner. The said proceedings are under challenge in these writ petitions. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, as per paragraph 10.2 of Ext.P1 Scheme, the Grievance Redressal Officer is the authority competent to receive applications seeking benefits of the Scheme. The power to pass orders on such applications is also conferred on the said authority. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the fifth respondent of forwarding the applications to the sixth respondent is submitted to be illegal. Consequently, the orders passed Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 3 by the sixth respondent rejecting the applications of the petitioners are also submitted to be unsustainable. The reasons stated in the application for rejecting the petitioner's request are also submitted to be wrong and unsustainable. 4. I have heard Mr.S.Easwaran, who appears for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader also. Clause 10.2 of Ext.P1 Scheme reads as follows:- “10.2. Every lending institution shall appoint one or more Grievance Redressal Officers for each State(having regard to the number of branches in that State). The name and address of the Grievance Redressal Officer concerned shall be displayed in each branch of the lending institution. The Grievance Redressal Officer shall have the authority to receive representations from aggrieved farmers and pass appropriate orders thereon. The order o f the Grievance Redressal Officer shall be final”. 5. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the fifth respondent is the authority to consider and pass orders on the request of Wpc 3266/10 & conn. cases 4 the petitioners for deciding whether they are entitled to the benefits of the Scheme. However, instead of passing orders on the request of the petitioners by himself, he forwarded the request to the sixth respondent, without any authority. Since the sixth respondent had no authority to pass orders on the request of the petitioner, the orders so passed by him are unsustainable. 6. In view of the above, the proceedings of the 5th and 6th respondents evidenced in these writ petitions by Ext.P6(a) to (m), P7(a) to (l) and P8(a) to (l) are quashed. The fifth respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioners in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as directed in Ext.P5 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk