1 W.P.No.828.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2009 1] Ashokrao S/o Raosaheb Deshmukh Age:56 years,Occup. Agriculture 2] Sau Meenakshibai W/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age 46 years, Occup. Household 3] Sau. Arundhati W/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age, 29 years, Occup. Household. 4] Abhijeet S/o Ashokrao Deshmukh, Age: 27 years Occup. Agriculture 5] Vishwajeet S/o Ashokrao Deshmukh Age 36 years Occupation Agril. All above are R/o Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed. .PETITIONERS V E R S U S. 1] The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Beed District Co-operative Bank Ltd., Head Office Rajuri Ves, Beed Through its Managing Director. 3] The Ghatnandur Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Ghatnandur, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed, through its Secretary. 2 W.P.No.828.09 4] The Union of India,(Copy to be served through Standing Council Assistant Solicitor General of India) .RESPONDENTS ... Shri.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.V.H.Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Shri.A.S.Londhe,Advocate holding for Shri U.S.Mote,Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri.N.S.Kadam,Advocate holding for Shri.M.P.Tripathi,Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 29TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the learned Counsel of the parties, matter is heard and finally decided at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners contend that they obtained loan from the respondent No.2-Bank, through respondent No.3- Society. The loan was obtained by the petitioners individually and was sanctioned on 8th February, 2007 by the respondent No.2-Bank. 3 W.P.No.828.09 The loan amount was disbursed to the petitioners under the scheme of advancement of loan, the loan amount was to be repaid by 29th June, 2007. In short, the petitioners’ contention is that in accordance with scheme framed by the Central Government, namely, ”Krushi Karzmafi Va Thakit Karz Sahaya Yojna 2008”, the petitioners are entitled for waiver of the loan, which they obtained from the respondent No.1-Bank, as they were defaulter on the crucial date i.e. on 29th June, 2007. Under the scheme a Designated Officer of the Bank is authorized to settle the grievances in this regard. The petitioners made a grievance to the said Officer, who is said to be Senior Accountant of respondent No.2-Bank. By communications dated 05.08.2008 and 7.8.2008 the said Officer informed that the petitioners were not entitled to claim benefit of waiver. These communications are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for 4 W.P.No.828.09 the petitioners submits that in the light of the scheme of waiver, which is annexed and marked at Exhibit “C” and the Chart of disbursement of the loan annexed and marked as Exhibit “B” with this petition, the petitioners ought to have been held to be entitled for the purpose of waiver of scheme declared by the Central Government and being implemented through various agencies like respondent No.2-Bank. The learned counsel submits that in case respondent No.3-Society had submitted certain documents like Promissory Note or any other document indicating continuation of the loan obtained by the petitioners from the respondent No.2 bank, same shall not be construed to the detriment of the petitioners, as petitioners were defaulter on the crucial date i.e. 29th June,2007. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners did not authorise the respondent No.3-Society to continue the loan obtained from the bank as borrower. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 5 W.P.No.828.09 respondent No.2 Bank produced the original record before us. On instructions, the learned counsel submits that as the petitioners’ loan was continued under the communication sent by the respondent No.3-Society to the respondent No.2- Bank stating that the petitioners’ continued to be borrowers and could not be defaulter for claiming benefits of the waiver scheme. The counsel submits on instructions that the petitioner No.1-Ashokrao Raosaheb Deshmukh, has repaid the amount of loan outstanding against him, therefore, his name could be excluded from consideration of waiver of the scheme. 5. Without entering into the disputed questions of facts, which are raised by the parties, we are of the opinion that the Officers concerned to entertain the grievances as envisaged in clause 10.2 of the Scheme(Exhibit “C”) shall reconsider the matter after going through the record maintained by the respondent NO.2-Bank and respondent No.3-Society and individual members 6 W.P.No.828.09 i.e. the petitioners herein, and decide the grievances of the petitioners in respect of claiming benefits of waiver of scheme, afresh. 6. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that matter needs to be remanded back to the officer concerned for reconsideration. Thus, we pass following order: Order (i) The impugned communications dated 05.08.2008 and 07.08.2008 issued by the Officers of the respondent No.2-Bank to the petitioners are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Officer concerned. (ii) The Officer concerned shall hear the parties, consider the record, object behind the scheme and thereafter pass brief reasoned order at the earliest. (iii) All issues are kept upon. 7 W.P.No.828.09 (iv) The parties to the petition are entitled to file written submission before the Authority. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK