IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 22786 of 2007(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- THE THODUPUZHA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.394, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBT RELIEF COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, THE THODUPUZHA URBAN BANK (GROUP) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THODUPUZHA. 5. SHIBU RAGHAVAN, KANJIRAKKATTU HOUSE, VANNAPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22786/2007 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AWARD DTD. 06/01/06 IN A.R.C.NO.5409/05 AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE AUCTION SALE NOTICE DTD. 20/10/06 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 29/03/07 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20/06/07 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/06/07 IN APP.NO.0260/07(ID) OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.22786 of 2007 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The service in this writ petition was completed before 15-10-2007. None appears for the fifth respondent, in particular. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Ext.P1 shows that the fifth respondent availed a loan for a business purpose. It is a document shown to have been executed by the fifth respondent in favour of the petitioner in support of the loan. The contents of that document, though not disputed by the fifth respondent, who, as already noticed, does not even appear. 3. The fifth respondent moved the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission constituted WPC22786/2007 -:2:- under the provisions of the Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 (Act 1 of 2007) and obtained Ext.P6 order whereby, the said Commission, holding prima facie that the fifth respondent is a farmer, stayed all further proceedings in terms of the recovery proceedings referred to in Ext.P6 on condition that the fifth respondent pays two instalments at the rate of Rs.50,000/- as fixed therein. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fifth respondent does not remit even those amounts. The impugned Ext.P1 is therefore worked itself out. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that owing to the pendency of Ext.P6 proceedings, that is, Application No.0260/07/ID before the Commission, the statutory authorities under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act are not proceeding with distress action. This cannot be, because, the order of stay granted by the Commission no more survives and the fifth respondent has indisputably WPC22786/2007 -:3:- not complied with the conditions imposed by the Commission. 4. The fundamental jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner and argued by its learned counsel is that, even if the fifth respondent is shown to be a farmer, which fact is disputed by the petitioner, it is impermissible for the Commission to entertain any request in relation to the transaction evidenced by Ext.P1 because it is a business transaction. 5. The power of the Commission under Section 5(2) is to issue orders to keep in abeyance the repayment of debts. The word “debt” is defined in Section 2(vii) of the Act which enumerates different liabilities but specifically excludes any loan taken by the farmer for commercial purpose. Therefore, Ext.P1 transaction goes out of the zone of applicability of Act 1/07. The entertainment of WPC22786/2007 -:4:- the proceedings in Application No.0260/07(ID) by the Commission is therefore without jurisdiction. In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing all proceedings of the second respondent Commission in Application No.0260/07(ID) and it is declared that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such application. No costs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl/2/6/08